The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The appeals failed.
Lord Mance summarised the reasons for his conclusions: ‘(A) Human Rights Act
In respect of Chester’s claim under the Human Rights Act, which only relates to elections to the European and United Kingdom Parliaments, I would decline the Attorney General’s invitation to this Court not to apply the principles in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) 42 EHRR 41 (‘Hirst (No 2)’) and Scoppola v Italy (No 3) (2013) 56 EHRR 19 (paras 34-35) (‘Scoppola’), but also decline to make any further declaration of incompatibility with the Convention rights.
(B) European law
a. In respect of McGeoch’s and Chester’s claims under European law, which can at most relate to elections to the European Parliament and municipal authorities (paras 9, 45 and 46), I conclude that European law does not incorporate any right to vote paralleling that recognised by the European Court of Human Rights in its case-law or any other individual right to vote which is engaged or upon which, if engaged, they are able to rely.
b. Had European law conferred any right to vote on which McGeoch and Chester can rely:
i. the only relief that might have been considered would have been a generally phrased declaration that the legislative provisions governing eligibility to vote in European Parliamentary and municipal elections in the United Kingdom were inconsistent with European Community or Union law but that would not have appeared appropriate in the particular cases of Chester and McGeoch;
ii. the general ban on voting in European Parliamentary and municipal elections could not have been disapplied as a whole;
iii. it would not have been possible to read the RPA section 3 or EPEA section 8 compatibly with European law;
iv. the Supreme Court could not itself devise a scheme or arrangements that would or might pass muster with European law; that would be for Parliament;
v. neither of the appellants could have had any arguable claim for damages in respect of any breach of European law which may be involved in RPA section 3 and/or EPEA section 8.
(C) European Court of Justice
The resolution of these appeals does not necessitate a reference to the European Court of Justice. In so far as it raises issues of European law for determination, they are either not open to reasonable doubt or involve the application by this Court to the facts of established principles of European law.
(D) Both appeals fall therefore, in my opinion, to be dismissed
Baroness Hale said that when the court was considering remedies under the 1998 Act it should adopt the ‘sensible practice’ of asking in what way the particular claimant’s Convention rights had been violated. She continued:’That leaves the possibility of a declaration of incompatibility under section 4(2) of the Human Rights Act 1998. This applies ‘in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right’: section 4(1). This does appear to leave open the possibility of a declaration in abstracto, irrespective of whether the provision in question is incompatible with the rights of the individual litigant. There may be occasions when that would be appropriate. But in my view the court should be extremely slow to make a declaration of incompatibility at the instance of an individual litigant with whose own rights the provision in question is not incompatible. Any other approach is to invite a multitude of unmeritorious claims.’

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Hope, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes
[2013] UKSC 63, [2014] 1 AC 271, [2014] HRLR 3, [2013] 3 WLR 1076, [2014] 1 All ER 683, [2013] WLR(D) 392, [2014] 1 CMLR 45, 2014 SC (UKSC) 25, 2014 SLT 143, 2013 GWD 34-676, UKSC 2012/0151
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
European Convention on Human Rights, Human Rights Act 1998 4(2)
Scotland
Citing:
At First Instance – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 28-Oct-2009
Burton J dismissed a claim for judicial review brought by the serving prisoner, to challenge his statutory disfranchisement from voting in domestic and European Parliamentary elections. . .
Appeal from – Chester v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Dec-2010
The prisoner claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of his disenfranchisement whilst a prisoner.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It was not possible to read into the Act as suggested a duty on a judge on . .
Cited – Matthews v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Feb-1999
Member states have obligations to ensure that citizens of each state were given opportunity to vote in European elections. Britain failed to give the vote to its citizens in Gibraltar in breach of the convention right to participate in free . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Barclay and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 1-Dec-2009
The claimants said that restrictions within the constitution of Sark on who could sit in the Chief Pleas were incompatible with their human rights. The claimants variously owned property on Sark but had restricted rights to vote and stand.
Cited – Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
Cited – AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others SC 12-Oct-2011
Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR
The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable . .
Cited – Scoppola v Italy (No 3) ECHR 22-May-2012
(Grand Chamber) A prisoner serving a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and other offences object to his disenfranchisement under Italian law. . .
Cited – McLean and Cole v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jun-2013
The applicants complained that, as convicted prisoners, they had been subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had been, or would be, prevented from voting in one or more of the following: elections to the European Parliament on 4 June . .
Cited – McLean and Cole v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jun-2013
The applicants complained that, as convicted prisoners, they had been subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had been, or would be, prevented from voting in one or more of the following: elections to the European Parliament on 4 June . .
Cited – Anchugov And Gladkov v Russia ECHR 4-Jul-2013
. .
Cited – Soyler v Turkey ECHR 17-Sep-2013
. .
Cited – Animal Defenders International v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Apr-2013
ECHR (Grand Chamber) Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Refusal of permission for non-governmental organisation to place television advert owing to statutory prohibition of political advertising: no . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
Cited – Sauve v Canada (Chief Electoral Officer) 31-Oct-2002
Canlii Supreme Court of Canada – Constitutional law – Charter of Rights – Right to vote – Prisoners – Canada Elections Act provision disqualifying persons imprisoned in correctional institution serving sentences . .
Cited – Spain v United Kingdom ECJ 12-Sep-2006
ECJ Law Governing The Institutions – European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar and not having citizenship of the Union. . .
Cited – Eman and Sevinger (European Citizenship) ECJ 12-Sep-2006
ECJ (Opinion) European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Requirements of residence in the Netherlands for Netherlands citizens of Aruba – Citizenship of the Union. . .
Cited – Smith v KD Scott, Electoral Registration Officer SCS 24-Jan-2007
The prisoner claimed that his right to vote had not been re-instated despite a year having passed since the European Court of Human Rights had found that the withdrawal of that right for prisoners was an infringement.
Held: It was not possible . .
Cited – Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
Cited – Vinter And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 9-Jul-2013
(Grand Chamber) The three appellants had each been convicted of exceptionally serious murders, and been sentenced to mandatory life sentences, but with provision that they could not be eligible for early release, making them whole life terms. They . .
Cited – Mangold v Helm ECJ 22-Nov-2005
ECJ Grand Chamber – Directive 1999/70/EC – Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 6 – Equal treatment as regards employment and occupation – Age . .
Cited – Kucukdevici v Swedex GmbH ECJ 7-Jul-2007
ECJ Directive 2000/78/EC in principle non’discrimination age – National legislation on dismissal not taking into account the period of service completed before the employee reaches the age of 25 to calculate the . .
Cited – Bartsch v Bosch und Siemens Hausgerate (BSH) Altersfursorge GmbH ECJ 23-Sep-2008
ECJ Equal treatment in employment and occupation Article 13 EC Directive 2000/78/EC Occupational pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse more than 15 years younger than the deceased former . .
Cited – Francovich, Bonifaci and others v Italy ECJ 19-Nov-1991
LMA The claimants, a group of ex-employees sought arrears of wages on their employers’ insolvency. The European Directive required Member States to provide a guarantee fund to ensure payment of employees’ arrears . .
Cited – Brasserie du Pecheur v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame and others (4) ECJ 5-Mar-1996
Member states may be liable to individuals for their failure to implement EU laws. The right of individuals to rely on directly applicable provisions of the EC Treaty before national courts is not sufficient in itself to ensure full and complete . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others (No 5) HL 28-Oct-1999
A member state’s breach of European Law, where the law was clear and the national legislation had the effect of discriminating unlawfully against citizens of other members states, was sufficiently serious to justify an award of damages against that . .
Cited – Robins and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions ECJ 25-Jan-2007
ECJ Free movement of persons – Protection of employees in the event of the employer’s insolvency – Directive 80/987/EEC Transposition Article 8 Supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes – Old-age . .
Cited – Kucukdeveci v Swedex GmbH and Co KG ECJ 19-Jan-2010
ECJ Principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age – Directive 2000/78/EC – National legislation on dismissal not taking into account the period of employment completed before the employee reaches the age of . .
Cited – Frodl v Austria ECHR 8-Apr-2010
The applicant alleged that his disenfranchisement because he was serving a term of imprisonment of more than one year constituted a breach of his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. . .
Cited – Regina v H M Treasury, ex parte British Telecommunications ECJ 26-Mar-1996
The Government should not be ordered to pay compensation for failing to implement a European Directive which remained ambiguous. A failure to implement a directive into national law may be actionable but there would normally be only small damages. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence CA 4-Feb-2015
The claimant wife of a Squadron Leader occupied a military house with her husband under a licence from the defendant. When the marriage broke down, he defendant gave her notice to leave. She now complained that the arrangement was discriminatory and . .
Cited – Haney and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Justice SC 10-Dec-2014
The four claimants, each serving indeterminate prison sentences, said that as they approached the times when thy might apply for parol, they had been given insufficient support and training to meet the requirements for release. The courts below had . .
Cited – T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
Cited – Walker v Innospec Ltd and Others SC 12-Jul-2017
The claimant appealed against refusal of his employer’s pension scheme trustees to include as a recipient of any death benefit his male civil partner.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The salary paid to Mr Walker throughout his working life was . .
Cited – Hallam, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 30-Jan-2019
These appeals concern the statutory provisions governing the eligibility for compensation of persons convicted of a criminal offence where their conviction is subsequently quashed (or they are pardoned) because of the impact of fresh evidence. It . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Human Rights, Elections, European

Leading Case

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.516496

The applicant, a convicted serving prisoner complained that he had not been allowed to vote in presidential and parliamentary elections, and in a referendum on Poland’s accession to the EU.
Held: The Court rejected the claims in respect of (i) and (iii) ratione materiae because the A3P1 obligations related to the choice of legislature.

Nicolas Bratza, P
ECHR
European Convention on Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541522

Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Automatic and indiscriminate ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights: violation
Facts – Both applicants were convicted of murder and other criminal offences and death, later commuted to fifteen years’ imprisonment. They were also debarred from voting, in particular, in elections to the State Duma and in presidential elections, pursuant to Article 32 – 3 of the Russian Constitution. Both applicants challenged that provision before the Russian Constitutional Court, which, however, declined to accept the complaint for examination on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to check whether certain constitutional provisions were compatible with others.
Law – Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
(a) Election of the Russian President – The obligations imposed on the Contracting States by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 did not apply to the election of a Head of State.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
(b) Parliamentary elections – Article 32 – 3 of the Constitution applied automatically and indiscriminately to all convicted prisoners, regardless of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence or of their individual circumstances. While the Court was prepared to accept that the applicants’ disenfranchisement had pursued the aims of enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law and of ensuring the proper functioning of civil society and the democratic regime, it could not accept the Government’s argument regarding the proportionality of the restrictions. Indeed, while a large category of prisoners, namely those in detention during judicial proceedings, retained their right to vote, disenfranchisement nonetheless concerned a wide range of offenders and sentences from two months – the minimum period of imprisonment following conviction in Russia – to life and from relatively minor offences to the most serious ones. Nor was there evidence that, when deciding whether or not an immediate custodial sentence should be imposed, the Russian courts took into account the fact that such a sentence would involve disenfranchisement, or that they could make a realistic assessment of the proportionality of disenfranchisement in the light of the circumstances of each case. The Court reiterated in that connection that removal of the right to vote without any ad hoc judicial decision did not, in itself, give rise to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The fact that the ban on prisoners’ voting rights in Russia was laid down in the Constitution – the basic law of Russia adopted following a nationwide vote – rather than in an act of parliament, was irrelevant as all acts of a member State were subject to scrutiny under the Convention, regardless of the type of measure concerned. Besides, no relevant materials had been provided to the Court showing that an attempt had been made to weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of a blanket ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights.
In such circumstances, the respondent Government had overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them in that field and failed to secure the applicants’ right to vote. As regards the implementation of the judgment, the Court noted the Government’s argument that the ban was imposed by a provision of the Russian Constitution which could not be amended by the Parliament and could only be revised by adopting a new Constitution, which would involve a particularly complex procedure. However, it was primarily for the Russian authorities to choose, subject to the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in order to bring its legislation into line with the Convention once the judgment in the instant case became final. Indeed, it was open to the Government to explore all possible ways to ensure compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, including through some form of political process or by interpreting the Russian Constitution in harmony with the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.

11157/04 15162/05 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 791
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A3P1
Cited by:
Legal Summary – Anchugov And Gladkov v Russia ECHR 4-Jul-2013
. .
Cited – Moohan and Another v The Lord Advocate SC 17-Dec-2014
The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Elections, Prisons

Updated: 19 November 2021; Ref: scu.515130

firth_ukECHR1408

The claimants were prisoners who complained that as prisoners they had been automatically not allowed to vote in European Elections.
Held: The complaints were admissible, and the legislation was incompatible with the prisoners’ human rights, but damages other than for non-pecuniary losses were rejected.

Ineta Ziemele, P
47784/09 – Chamber Judgment, [2014] ECHR 874
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights A3P1

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections, News

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.535702

The petitioners, convicted serving prisoners, had sought judicial review of the refusal to allow them to vote in the Scottish Referendum on Independence. The request had been refused in the Outer and Inner Houses.
Held: (Kerr, Wilson JJSC dissenting) The ban did not infringe the prisoners’ human rights. The referendum was not an election to a democratically elected legislature.
Courts should not seek to develop the common law in a way designed to add to or replace statutory rights.
Baroness Hale said: ‘The courts of the United Kingdom are not bound by the judgments of the Strasbourg Court in interpreting the ECHR. In section 2 of HRA 1998 the courts are obliged only to ‘take into account’ that jurisprudence. There is room for disagreement and dialogue between the domestic courts and the Strasbourg Court on the application of provisions of the ECHR to circumstances in the UK. Nonetheless, it is consistent with the intention of Parliament in enacting HRA 1998 that our courts should follow ‘a clear and constant line of decisions’ of the Strasbourg Court, ‘whose effect is not inconsistent with some fundamental substantive or procedural aspect of our law, and whose reasoning does not appear to overlook or misunderstand some argument or point of principle”

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKSC 67, [2014] WLR(D) 544, UKSC 2014/0183, [2015] 1 AC 901, [2015] 2 All ER 361, 2015 SLT 2, 2015 GWD 1-1, [2015] 2 WLR 141
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC
Representation of the People Act 1983 3(1), Human Rights Act 1998, Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013 82 3
Scotland
Citing:
At Outer House – Moohan, Re Judicial Review SCS 19-Dec-2013
Outer House – the petitioners, each convicted serving prisoners, complained of the blanket ban on them voting in the referendum on Scottish Independence.
Held: The petition was refused. The Act was not a breach of the petitioners’ rights under . .
Appeal from – Moohan and Black Gillon v The Lord Advocate SCS 2-Jul-2014
Inner House – Challenge to denial to prisoners of right to vote in forthcoming independence referendum. They said it was contrary to Human Rights and European Law.
Held: The House refused a reclaiming motion by the petitioners. . .
Cited – X v United Kingdom ECHR 3-Oct-1975
The applicant, a serving prisoner, complained that he had been excluded from voting in the referendum on the British membership of the EEC.
Held: Article 10 does not guarantee a right to vote as such.
Article 3 Protocol 1 : the . .
Cited – Mathieu Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium ECHR 2-Mar-1987
(Plenary Court) The court described and approved the way in which an ‘institutional’ right to vote had developed into ‘subjective rights of participation – the ‘right to vote’ and the ‘right to stand for election’.’ It described the ambit of Article . .
Cited – Z v Latvia ECHR 24-Jan-2008
The applicant alleged that his detention on remand was excessively long, that the proceedings against him were unreasonably long and that he was denied a fair trial since his requests to examine witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and . .
Cited – Niedzwiedz v Poland ECHR 11-Mar-2008
The applicant, a convicted serving prisoner complained that he had not been allowed to vote in presidential and parliamentary elections, and in a referendum on Poland’s accession to the EU.
Held: The Court rejected the claims in respect of (i) . .
Cited – McLean and Cole v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jun-2013
The applicants complained that, as convicted prisoners, they had been subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections and had been, or would be, prevented from voting in one or more of the following: elections to the European Parliament on 4 June . .
Cited – Anchugov And Gladkov v Russia ECHR 4-Jul-2013
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Automatic and indiscriminate ban on convicted prisoners’ voting rights: violation
Facts – Both applicants were convicted of murder and other criminal offences and death, later commuted to fifteen . .
Cited – Liberal Party v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Dec-1980
Article 25 of the Convention
a) A political party, as a gathering of people with a common interest, can be considered as a non governmental organisation or a group of individuals ;
b) Can a political party, as such, be considered as a . .
Cited – Matthews v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Feb-1999
Member states have obligations to ensure that citizens of each state were given opportunity to vote in European elections. Britain failed to give the vote to its citizens in Gibraltar in breach of the convention right to participate in free . .
Cited – Zdanoka v Latvia ECHR 16-Mar-2006
(Grand Chamber) The applicant alleged that her disqualification from standing for election to the Latvian Parliament and to municipal elections infringed her rights as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and Articles 10 and . .
Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Rottmann v Freistaat Bayern ECJ 2-Mar-2010
ECJ Citizenship of the Union Article 17 EC – Nationality of one Member State acquired by birth – Nationality of another Member State acquired by naturalisation – Loss of original nationality by reason of that . .
Cited – Scoppola v Italy (No 3) ECHR 22-May-2012
(Grand Chamber) A prisoner serving a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and other offences object to his disenfranchisement under Italian law. . .
Cited – Manchester City Council v Pinnock SC 9-Feb-2011
The council tenant had wished to appeal following a possession order made after her tenancy had been demoted. The court handed down a supplemental judgment to give effect to its earlier decision. The Court had been asked ‘whether article 8 of the . . .
Cited – Rabone and Another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation SC 8-Feb-2012
The claimant’s daughter had committed suicide whilst on home leave from a hospital where she had stayed as a voluntary patient with depression. Her admission had followed a suicide attempt. The hospital admitted negligence but denied that it owed . .
Cited – Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v Greece ECHR 15-Mar-2012
Grand Chamber . .
Cited – Shindler v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-May-2013
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1
Vote
Restriction on voting rights of non-resident citizens: no violation
Facts – The applicant, a British national, left the United Kingdom in 1982 following his retirement and moved to Italy with his . .

Cited by:
Cited – Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .
Cited – Cherry, Reclaiming Motion By Joanna Cherry QC MP and Others v The Advocate General SCS 11-Sep-2019
(First Division, Inner House) The reclaimer challenged dismissal of her claim for review of the recent decision for the prorogation of the Parliament at Westminster.
Held: Reclaim was granted. The absence of reasons allowed the court to infer . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Elections, Prisons, Human Rights, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.540221

The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
Held: The claims failed and were struck out: ‘there are no reasonable grounds in domestic law for bringing a claim for damages or a declaration for being disenfranchised whilst a prisoner. Statute precludes it. Case-law is against it. European authority is against the payment of compensatory damages in respect of it. A claim for a declaration is not hopeless, but difficult. The fact the Secretary of State (or the State) has not acted to remedy the contravention identified in Hirst and Greens does not itself give rise to a claim for damages, because the express wording of Statute prevents it.’
As a representative claim the claimant had no simple right to withdraw, but legal aid had been refused, and not to allow him might leave the fate of other applicants compromised. An adjournment was inappropriate, and the court heard the defendant’s application for a strike out.
A reading down of the Act to make it comply with the ECHR rulings would require the statute wording to be turned on its head, and ‘ to interpret the statute in this way would be a step too far’.
as to costs, each of the remaining claimants should pay an equal share of the defendant’s costs.

Langstaff J
[2011] EWHC 271 (QB), [2011] HRLR 17
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 3, Human Rights Act 1998 6 7
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State ex parte Toner and Walsh NIQB 1997
The claimants sought damages saying that the respondent had infringed their human rights in removing their right to vote in an election whilst serving prison sentences. . .
Cited – Chester v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Dec-2010
The prisoner claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of his disenfranchisement whilst a prisoner.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It was not possible to read into the Act as suggested a duty on a judge on . .
Cited – Smith v KD Scott, Electoral Registration Officer SCS 24-Jan-2007
The prisoner claimed that his right to vote had not been re-instated despite a year having passed since the European Court of Human Rights had found that the withdrawal of that right for prisoners was an infringement.
Held: It was not possible . .
Grand Chamber decision – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Frodl v Austria ECHR 8-Apr-2010
The applicant alleged that his disenfranchisement because he was serving a term of imprisonment of more than one year constituted a breach of his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. . .
Cited – Davies v Eli Lilly and Co (Opren Litigation) CA 1987
The powers in the section together with the power to make orders for costs under Order 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court included the power to make a pre-emptive order for costs.
Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘In these circumstances the judge . .
Cited – Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co Ltd CA 2010
A party who discontinues, having allied himself to a claim brought by another, may, nonetheless, be called on to pay the entirety of the costs together with that other where that other is unsuccessful . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Prisons, Elections

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.429741