Get Our Extension

Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)

From Wikipedia, in a visual modern way
Hirst v the United Kingdom (No 2)
CourtEuropean Court of Human Rights
Citation(s)[2005] ECHR 681, (2006) 42 EHRR 41
Keywords
Prisoner, right to vote

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

Discover more about Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) related topics

European Court of Human Rights

European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights, 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 a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The European Convention on Human Rights is also referred to by the initials "ECHR". The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

European Convention on Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

Universal suffrage

Universal suffrage

Universal suffrage ensures the right to vote for as many people who are bound by a government's laws as possible, as supported by the "one person, one vote" principle. For many, the term universal suffrage assumes the exclusion of youth and non-citizens, while some insist that much more inclusion is needed before suffrage can be called universal. Democratic theorists, especially those hoping to achieve more universal suffrage, support presumptive inclusion, where the legal system would protect the voting rights of all subjects unless the government can clearly prove that disenfranchisement is necessary.

Facts

John Hirst, a post-tariff prisoner then serving a sentence for manslaughter,[1] was prevented from voting by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983,[2] 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.[3]

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.[1] The Court found that the restriction of prisoners' voting rights violated Protocol 1, Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights;[2]

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.[4] 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.[5]

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,[6] a decision called "completely unacceptable" by David Cameron.[7] 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.[8]

Discover more about Judgment related topics

European Convention on Human Rights

European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

Kenneth Clarke

Kenneth Clarke

Kenneth Harry Clarke, Baron Clarke of Nottingham 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 deputy chair of British American Tobacco from 1998 to 2007. A member of the Conservative Party, he was Member of Parliament (MP) for Rushcliffe from 1970 to 2019 and was Father of the House of Commons between 2017 and 2019. The President of the Tory Reform Group since 1997, he is a one-nation conservative who identifies with economically and socially liberal views.

Dominic Grieve

Dominic Grieve

Dominic Charles Roberts Grieve 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 Parliament (MP) for Beaconsfield from 1997 to 2019 and was the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee from 2015 to 2019.

David Cameron

David Cameron

David William Donald Cameron is a former British 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 of the Opposition from 2005 to 2010, and was Member of Parliament (MP) for Witney from 2001 to 2016. He identifies as a one-nation conservative, and has been associated with both economically liberal and socially liberal policies.

Source: "Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)", Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, (2022, April 16th), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2).

Enjoying Wikiz?

Enjoying Wikiz?

Get our FREE extension now!

Notes
  1. ^ a b Travais, Alan (7 October 2005). "Worst criminals will not get vote in jail despite European court ruling". The Guardian.. See also, from the same individual, a claim regarding delay in parole, [2001] ECHR 481.
  2. ^ a b "Chamber Judgment in the case of Hirst v. The United Kingdom (No.2)" (Press release). European Court of Human Rights. 30 March 2004.
  3. ^ "Q&A: UK Prisoners' right to vote". BBC. 6 October 2005.
  4. ^ "Prisoners to get the right to vote". The Guardian. 2 November 2010.
  5. ^ BBC News [1], 24 October 2012
  6. ^ Bowcott, Owen; correspondent, legal affairs (17 July 2014). "Why are the Conservatives against the European court of human rights?". The Guardian.
  7. ^ Cole, Matt (13 February 2012). "What is the European Court of Human Rights?". BBC News.
  8. ^ "Human rights being distorted – PM". BBC News. 25 January 2012.
External links

The content of this page is based on the Wikipedia article written by contributors..
The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike Licence & the media files are available under their respective licenses; additional terms may apply.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization & is not affiliated to WikiZ.com.