''Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)'' (2005

is a

European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that ...

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 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by ...

. 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 Universal suffrage (also called universal franchise, general suffrage, and common suffrage of the common man) gives the right to vote to all adult citizens, regardless of wealth, income, gender, social status, race, ethnicity, or political sta ...

Facts

John Hirst, a post-tariff prisoner then serving a sentence for

manslaughter Manslaughter is a common law legal term for homicide considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is sometimes said to have first been made by the ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th ce ...

,. See also, from the same individual, a claim regarding delay in parole, [2001
ECHR 481
was prevented from voting by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, 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.

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

; 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. This was rejected by the

British Parliament The Parliament of the United Kingdom is the supreme legislative body of the United Kingdom, the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories. It meets at the Palace of Westminster, London. It alone possesses legislative suprem ...

and the Government has repeatedly stated since then that prisoners will not be given the right to vote in spite of the ruling. 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 Kenneth Harry Clarke, Baron Clarke of Nottingham, (born 2 July 1940), often known as Ken Clarke, is a British politician who served as Home Secretary from 1992 to 1993 and Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1993 to 1997 as well as serving as de ...

and

Dominic Grieve Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve (born 24 May 1956) is a British barrister and former politician who served as Shadow Home Secretary from 2008 to 2009 and Attorney General for England and Wales from 2010 to 2014. He served as the Member of Parl ...

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, a decision called "completely unacceptable" by

David Cameron David William Donald Cameron (born 9 October 1966) is a British former politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2016 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 2005 to 2016. He previously served as Leader o ...

. 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.

Notes

{{Reflist, 2

External links

Grand Chamber judgment
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Election law in the United Kingdom European Court of Human Rights cases decided by the Grand Chamber European Court of Human Rights cases involving the United Kingdom Imprisonment and detention 2005 in British law 2005 in the United Kingdom 2005 in case law United Kingdom constitutional case law