High Court blocks compensation bid by prisoners prevented from voting in last years' general election

With 585 prisoners commencing claims that their human rights were breached, and a potential of 1,000 cases coming to court, the High Court has now blocked an attempt to claim compensation by prisoners prevented from voting in the 2010 general election.

In what could be seen as good news for those in the government, including the prime minister, who have voiced their objection to allowing prisoners to vote so vehemently, the High Court has prevented prisoners claiming compensation as they were prohibited from voting in the 2010 general elections.

Mr Justice Langstaff said "This judgement is to the effect that, applying those laws, including the Human Rights Act 1998, a prisoner will not succeed before a court in England and Wales in any claims for damages or a declaration based on his disenfranchisement while serving his sentence."

"The case was heard a day before parliament debated whether it should introduce legislation to amend the 1983 Act (Representation of the People Act 1983). Though the subject matter of each is the same – the enfranchisement of prisoners – the role of the courts and of the legislature are distinct ...

"This judgement is to the effect that, applying those laws, including the Human Rights Act 1998, a prisoner will not succeed before a court in England and Wales in any claim for damages or a declaration based on his disenfranchisement while serving his sentence."

The judge said the fact that the 1983 act was incompatible with a prisoner's rights under the European convention arose because of the blanket nature of the ban, as previous cases made clear. Those cases expressly recognised that a state had a wide margin of appreciation in deciding the category of case or prisoner for whom a restriction on the right to vote would not be a disproportionate interference with his rights generally.

He said it was not obvious if Paul Hydes, the lead claimant, would be in a category that would be enfranchised "however the margin of appreciation be exercised in honouring the government's international obligations".

"It cannot therefore be said that if the incompatibility were removed he would then have the vote," said the judge. "All would depend on how, legitimately, parliament chose to legislate. He might well remain outside the scope of the franchise."

He concluded: "I hold that there are no reasonable grounds in domestic law for bringing a claim for damages or a declaration for being disenfranchised whilst a prisoner.

The lead claimant, Paul Hydes was convicted in July 2009 of burglary, robbery and firearms offences. He was serving a life sentence with a minimum term before parole of four years and 265 days.

Where now?  The High Court may indeed have provided the many who object to prisoners being allowed to vote some welcome support, but we are answerable to the Council of Europe. This is not going to go away and what gives us the right to dictate to other countries how they should behave if we will not listen to other countries' opinions however unpalatable it may seem to many of us?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related Items

The items below list this Article as being related in some way.

Tags

There are no related tags.

Amazon's recommended Books

RSS Feeds

Archives

Recent Posts

The latest posts from the lawmentor.co.uk blog archives.

Court of appeal gives judgment acknowledging unmarried woman's rights

M/s J Smith v Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS foundation trust and others (2017)[2017] EWCA Civ 1916.

European union law – in the case of conflict between national law and european law

Walker (Appellant) v Innospec Limited and others (Respondents) [2017] UKSC 47 On appeal from [2015] EWCA Civ 1000

Vicarious liability is alive and well

This decision extends the doctrine of vicarious liability in respect of foster carers for the fist time and it represents another example of the potential for the expansion of this form of liability.

Supreme court busy - make sure you are geared up for your course

The Supreme Court has been especially busy lately.

Gina miller v secretary of state for exiting the eu 2016 as an example of the importance of judicial independence

Law students are now required to take note of how the independence and work of the judiciary has been reformed

Policing and crime bill and provisions for bail after arrest but before charge

The clear intention is that decisions on pre-charge bail should come under scrutiny.

The judicial committee of the privy council – a colonial legacy

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest court of appeal for many Commonwealth countries.

Does the scrapping of glen parva secure college and the lifting of a book ban herald the start to serious reform of the failing prison system?

How much of Michael Gove's vision for prisons and the criminal justice system will be effective in righting self-inflicted wrongs remains to be seen.