header-logo header-logo

10 February 2015
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Votes for prisoners?

Prisoners’ human rights were breached by the blanket ban on voting in the 2010 General Election, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.

The court ruled there had been a breach of Art 3 of Protocol No 1, on the right to free elections, in McHugh and others v UK (App No 51987/08). However, the court did not award costs or compensation.

Sean Lumber of Leigh Day & Co, who acted for 554 of the 1,015 prisoners who brought the case, said: “Frankly, this judgment comes as no surprise given that the Court has already found this ban to be unlawful in a succession of judgments over the last decade.

“However, given the UK government’s stubborn refusal to take action to remedy the breach, as it is legally required to do, and as a consequence of which it is almost certain that prisoners be unable to vote in the forthcoming May 2015 General Election, we are disappointed that the Court has not seen fit to award our clients compensation for breaching their rights.”

The ECtHR first declared the blanket ban unlawful in 2005, in Hirst (No 2) v UK (App No 74025/01). It has confirmed this decision in further judgments, including Firth and others v UK (App No 47784/09) in August 2014.

The government has published a draft Bill exploring a range of options. In December 2013, a Parliamentary Select Committee recommended that the government introduce legislation to give prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less the vote in the last six months of their sentence.  

However, the government has said it will take no action before the 2015 General Election since it is “clear that such legislation would not have a realistic prospect of passing through the current Parliament”. The Committee of Ministers, which oversees the ECtHR's judgments, has agreed to defer further discussion of the UK's implementation until September 2015.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The government has always been clear that it believes prisoner voting is an issue that should ultimately be decided in the UK. However we welcome the Court's decision to refuse convicted prisoners costs or damages.”

 

Issue: 7640 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll