Prisoners in Britain are to be given the right to
vote after judges in
Strasbourg decided the ban was a breach of their
human rights. The
ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg could give
the vote to many of the 77,000 prisoners in local
and general elections.
But Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the Lord
Chancellor, said on BBC Radio
4's World at One: "In relation to convicted
prisoners, the result of
this is not that every convicted prisoner is going
to get the right to
vote. We need to see whether there are any
categories that should be
given the right to vote.
"If you have been convicted of an offence that
puts you in prison, you
are, for that period, being taken out of freedom
in society. It is
absolutely plain that, whatever happens, in
relation to prisoners sent
to prison for any length of time, that [the ban]
will remain." The legal
challenge was brought by John Hirst while he was
serving life in Rye
Hill prison, Warwickshire, for manslaughter.
Now released and living in Hull, the 54-year-old
said his fight had been
about breaking the link between crime and the
right to take part in the
democratic process. He said: "The human rights
court has agreed with me
that the Government's position is wrong; it
doesn't matter how heinous
the crime, everyone is entitled to have the basic
human right to vote."
After his application to vote from prison was
turned down, Hirst took
his case to the High Court and lost. But in a 12
to five majority, the
17 judges in the "Grand Chamber" of the European
Court of Human Rights
said his human rights had been breached by the UK
Government because the
1983 Representation of the People Act did not
allow convicts to to vote
in parliamentary and local elections. The European
Convention on Human
Rights, to which Britain is a signatory,
guarantees the "right to free
elections" and, the judges said, that applied to
prisoners.
In February 1980, Hirst admitted the manslaughter
of his landlady Bronia
Burton with an axe on the grounds of diminished
responsibility. He was
sentenced to "discretionary life imprisonment"
with a minimum of 14
years. In November last year he was freed.
The European judges said the right to vote was "a
right and not a
privilege" and although that right was not
absolute, individual
countries were limited in the way they restricted
voting rights.
Any such restrictions had to have a legitimate aim
and be proportionate.
So far as prisoners were concerned, the judges
said "they generally
continue to enjoy all the fundamental rights
guaranteed under the
convention, except liberty". There was no need for
them to forfeit other
rights guaranteed by the convention.
Juliet Lyon, the director of the Prison Reform
Trust, said: "This
judgment confirms that people are sent to prison
to lose their liberty,
not their identity or their citizenship. Prisoners
should be given every
opportunity to pay for what they have done ... and
make plans for
effective resettlement. This should include
maintaining their right to
vote."
Bobby Cummines, the chief executive of the
ex-offenders' charity,
Unlock, said: "How can we make someone an upright
citizen when the first
thing we do in prison is to force that person to
undergo a 'civic
death'? Prisons must be used as a place for
rehabilitation, where
prisoners are trained to be decent citizens and
that means ensuring that
they know they are very much alive to society.
This means equal voting
rights."
The judges awarded Hirst costs of £16,000, but
ruled against damages.