European Judges say Britain must give prisoners the vote.
Discussion
Yet any case highlighting why Britain must withdraw from the convention on human rights as a matter of urgency. We should not allow our ancient traditions and laws to be overturned by the closet Socialists who have gained control of the European judiciary.
BBC Article
Prison voting case goes to Europe
John Hirst is confident that European judges will back his view
European judges in Strasbourg are set to make a final ruling on whether prisoners should be allowed to vote.
The government is appealing against an earlier verdict that current British laws barring prisoners from voting breach human rights.
The original result was a victory for ex-prisoner John Hirst, who was awarded £8,000 in costs and expenses by the European Court of Human Rights.
British law bars convicts from voting in parliamentary and local elections.
This is made clear in the 1983 Representation of the People Act.
The High Court rejected Mr Hirst's assertion that Section 3 of the Act is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Britain is a signatory.
But the former inmate won his case in the Human Rights court in Strasbourg, where his lawyers successfully argued that prisoners should have the right to vote under the Convention's guarantee to the "right to free elections", the "right to free expression" and "prohibition of discrimination".
It doesn't matter how heinous the crime; everyone is entitled to have the basic human right to vote
John Hirst
And judges delivered a unanimous verdict that denying a prisoner a vote does breach the "right to free elections" set out in the Convention.
If the original verdict is upheld by the court's 17-judge Grand Chamber in their final judgement, current law will have to be changed to ensure that all prisoners in Britain can cast their vote if they wish to do so.
Mr Hirst, 54, was released last November from a life sentence in Rye Hill prison, Warwickshire, where he had been held for manslaughter.
"When I was in prison I wanted to vote and I was surprised to find I couldn't," said Mr Hirst, who now lives in Hull.
"I took it up with the authorities. When I lost my case in Britain I was advised I had a good chance if I went to the Human Rights court."
Wrong position?
The former inmate went on: "The government has argued that prisoners who are in jail have given up their right to vote by their criminal actions, but the Human Rights court has already unanimously said that that position is wrong.
"It doesn't matter how heinous the crime; everyone is entitled to have the basic human right to vote."
He is confident the Grand Chamber will confirm their previous ruling in the final round of the legal battle.
In 1980 Mr Hirst pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was sentenced to "discretionary life imprisonment".
The tariff part of his term - the part relating to retribution and deterrence - expired in June last year.
However, he was not freed until five months later.
BBC Article
Prison voting case goes to Europe
John Hirst is confident that European judges will back his view
European judges in Strasbourg are set to make a final ruling on whether prisoners should be allowed to vote.
The government is appealing against an earlier verdict that current British laws barring prisoners from voting breach human rights.
The original result was a victory for ex-prisoner John Hirst, who was awarded £8,000 in costs and expenses by the European Court of Human Rights.
British law bars convicts from voting in parliamentary and local elections.
This is made clear in the 1983 Representation of the People Act.
The High Court rejected Mr Hirst's assertion that Section 3 of the Act is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Britain is a signatory.
But the former inmate won his case in the Human Rights court in Strasbourg, where his lawyers successfully argued that prisoners should have the right to vote under the Convention's guarantee to the "right to free elections", the "right to free expression" and "prohibition of discrimination".
It doesn't matter how heinous the crime; everyone is entitled to have the basic human right to vote
John Hirst
And judges delivered a unanimous verdict that denying a prisoner a vote does breach the "right to free elections" set out in the Convention.
If the original verdict is upheld by the court's 17-judge Grand Chamber in their final judgement, current law will have to be changed to ensure that all prisoners in Britain can cast their vote if they wish to do so.
Mr Hirst, 54, was released last November from a life sentence in Rye Hill prison, Warwickshire, where he had been held for manslaughter.
"When I was in prison I wanted to vote and I was surprised to find I couldn't," said Mr Hirst, who now lives in Hull.
"I took it up with the authorities. When I lost my case in Britain I was advised I had a good chance if I went to the Human Rights court."
Wrong position?
The former inmate went on: "The government has argued that prisoners who are in jail have given up their right to vote by their criminal actions, but the Human Rights court has already unanimously said that that position is wrong.
"It doesn't matter how heinous the crime; everyone is entitled to have the basic human right to vote."
He is confident the Grand Chamber will confirm their previous ruling in the final round of the legal battle.
In 1980 Mr Hirst pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was sentenced to "discretionary life imprisonment".
The tariff part of his term - the part relating to retribution and deterrence - expired in June last year.
However, he was not freed until five months later.
Its a load of b
ks, but can't say it worries me hugely...the prison population was around 60,000 last time I looked; hardly a figure likely to have much effect on the outcome; ok they'll all vote Labour but if the Tories need to worry about 60,000 convicts voting then we've got far greater problems than this.
ks, but can't say it worries me hugely...the prison population was around 60,000 last time I looked; hardly a figure likely to have much effect on the outcome; ok they'll all vote Labour but if the Tories need to worry about 60,000 convicts voting then we've got far greater problems than this.AlexH said:
Its a load of b
True, but its the principle that's
outrageous. Rights? Lets have a look at the right to not be murdered first shall we, Mr Hirst...you know, start with the basics.....
what difference does it make if prisoners are allowed to vote.
Hirst was in for manslaughter. What has his crime got to do with whether he is allowed to give his formal opinion on the whom he believes should or should not be in a particular position.
I would much rather students were refused the vote. Now there is a scum-ridden-bottom-feeding section of society if i ever saw one...and estate agents and solicitors
Hirst was in for manslaughter. What has his crime got to do with whether he is allowed to give his formal opinion on the whom he believes should or should not be in a particular position.
I would much rather students were refused the vote. Now there is a scum-ridden-bottom-feeding section of society if i ever saw one...and estate agents and solicitors
JagLover said:
This all depends - how do you view the right to vote - as a privilige, or a duty, or a pain in the arse?
As a privilege certainly
Definately a privilege, a privilege which people have died to defend and secure for the rest of us. AFAIK liberty is also a basic human right under this european charter, surely the whole practice of locking prisoners up is contrary to this as well? Have to say Jaglover, I'm torn on this one.
On the one hand, my heart says: "Fech 'em" they did the crime......then do the time and suffer all the consequences!.....
On the other hand?.....What if it was only a Pensioner who had refused to pay above inflation part of his/her council tax?.....
Or a business-man, come to grief and in open prison for:.....ahem! fiscal misdemeanours.
Do they forgo their "rights" as well?......
To somehow endevour to decide who does and who does NOT lose their "right" to vote would cost the taxpayer £billions in court costs making certain barristers very happy.
So!.....With brain re-engaged........I think I'll go with the: "Give them the vote" camp, has someone just said:...."it'll not make much difference anyway"......
On the one hand, my heart says: "Fech 'em" they did the crime......then do the time and suffer all the consequences!.....
On the other hand?.....What if it was only a Pensioner who had refused to pay above inflation part of his/her council tax?.....
Or a business-man, come to grief and in open prison for:.....ahem! fiscal misdemeanours.
Do they forgo their "rights" as well?......
To somehow endevour to decide who does and who does NOT lose their "right" to vote would cost the taxpayer £billions in court costs making certain barristers very happy.
So!.....With brain re-engaged........I think I'll go with the: "Give them the vote" camp, has someone just said:...."it'll not make much difference anyway"......
8Pack said:
Have to say Jaglover, I'm torn on this one.
On the one hand, my heart says: "Fech 'em" they did the crime......then do the time and suffer all the consequences!.....
On the other hand?.....What if it was only a Pensioner who had refused to pay above inflation part of his/her council tax?.....
Or a business-man, come to grief and in open prison for:.....ahem! fiscal misdemeanours.
Do they forgo their "rights" as well?......
To somehow endevour to decide who does and who does NOT lose their "right" to vote would cost the taxpayer £billions in court costs making certain barristers very happy.
So!.....With brain re-engaged........I think I'll go with the: "Give them the vote" camp, has someone just said:...."it'll not make much difference anyway"......
Lots of good points, totally agree, and as you say, wont make much difference anyway....
8Pack said:
On the other hand?.....What if it was only a Pensioner who had refused to pay above inflation part of his/her council tax?.....
On that subject, I cant believe she got a custodial sentence, and that bloke who won 7 mil whilst in jail, and rakes in 30K a week interest is costing the tax payer 10 grand a month to keep him safe, how daft is that, its about time we had some serious shake up of the law on these things.
Seem to me if you want 24 hour protection, just go out and committ some foul dead or another, and bobs your uncle. Incidently how long will this 10 grand a month joke go on for I wonder?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff