Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{DISPLAYTITLE:Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)}}
{{Infobox Court Case
| name = Hirst v the United Kingdom (No 2)
| court = European Court of Human Rights
| image =
| caption =
| date decided =
| full name =
| citations = [2005] [http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2005/681.html ECHR 681], (2006) 42 EHRR 41
| judges =
| prior actions =
| subsequent actions =
| opinions =
| transcripts =
| keywords = Prisoner, right to vote
| italic title = no
}}
Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) [http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2005/681.html ECHR 681] is a European Court of Human Rights case, where the court ruled that a blanket ban on British prisoners exercising the right to vote is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. The court did not state that all prisoners should be given voting rights. Rather, it held that if the franchise was to be removed, then the measure needed to be compatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol, thus putting the onus upon the UK to justify its departure from the principle of universal suffrage.
Facts
John Hirst, a post-tariff prisoner then serving a sentence for manslaughter,{{cite news|title=Worst criminals will not get vote in jail despite European court ruling|first=Alan|last=Travais|date=7 October 2005|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/oct/07/constitution.ukcrime}}. See also, from the same individual, a claim regarding delay in parole, [2001] [http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2001/481.html ECHR 481]. was prevented from voting by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983,{{cite press release|title=Chamber Judgment in the case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom (No.2)|publisher=European Court of Human Rights|date=30 March 2004| url=http://www.coe.int/T/d/kommunikation_und_politische_forschung/presse_und_online_info/Presseinfos/P2004/20040330-GH-UK.asp}} which prohibits convicted prisoners from voting during their incarceration in a penal institution. In 2001, Hirst brought a case to the High Court, but the case was dismissed.{{cite news|title=Q&A: UK Prisoners' right to vote|date=6 October 2005|publisher=BBC|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4316148.stm}}
Judgment
In 2004, the Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, recorded in Hirst v UK (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41, ruled unanimously that there had been a violation of Hirst's human right under Article 3 of the First Protocol. The UK lodged an appeal to the Grand Chamber, and on 6 October 2005, it found in favour of Hirst by a majority of twelve to five. The Court found that the restriction of prisoners' voting rights violated Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
Once a case has been decided by the ECtHR, it falls to the Committee of Ministers to supervise execution of the Court's judgment. The British Government initially attempted to introduce legislation to give prisoners the right to vote.{{cite news|title=Prisoners to get the right to vote|work=The Guardian|date=2 November 2010|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/nov/02/prisoners-vote-european-court-human-rights}} This was rejected by the British Parliament and the Government has repeatedly stated since then that prisoners will not be given the right to vote in spite of the ruling.BBC News [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20053244], 24 October 2012
In the UK, the court was criticized for allegedly being over-intrusive in areas considered to be the domain of domestic courts and parliament; Kenneth Clarke and Dominic Grieve claimed that the court does not give sufficient margin of appreciation to states, a controversy being the court's requirement that the UK liberalize voting rights for prisoners,{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jul/17/european-court-of-human-rights-explainer|title=Why are the Conservatives against the European court of human rights?|first1=Owen|last1=Bowcott|first2=legal affairs|last2=correspondent|date=17 July 2014|publisher=|work=The Guardian}} a decision called "completely unacceptable" by David Cameron.{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/17016952/what-is-the-european-court-of-human-rights|title=What is the European Court of Human Rights?|first=Matt|last=Cole|date=13 February 2012|work=BBC News}} Cameron also claimed that the concept of human rights was being "distorted" and "discredited" by the ECHR, because reasonable decisions made at a national level were not respected by the court.{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-16708845|title=Human rights being distorted – PM|date=25 January 2012|publisher=|work=BBC News}}
See also
Notes
{{Reflist|2}}
External links
- [http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=787485&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 Grand Chamber judgment]
Category:Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Category:Election law in the United Kingdom
Category:European Court of Human Rights cases decided by the Grand Chamber
Category:European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom
Category:Imprisonment and detention