Previous 15 / 64 Next

59. Seventh, such limitations must not curtail the rights under article 3 to such an extent as to impair their very essence, and deprive them of their effectiveness. They must reflect, or not run counter to, the concern to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of an electoral procedure aimed at identifying the will of the people through universal suffrage. Any departure from the principle of universal suffrage risks undermining the democratic validity of the legislature and the laws which it promulgates: Mathieu-Mohin, para 52; Yumak, para 109(iv).” 18. The European Court of Human Rights has expressed its attitude to the exclusion or limitation of prisoners’ voting rights in well-known decisions. Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) 42 EHRR 849 and Scoppola v Italy (No 3) (2012) 56 EHRR 663 each came first before a simple Chamber of seven judges and then before a Grand Chamber composed of 17 judges. Hirst (No 2) was a claim regarding his disenfranchisement from voting in United Kingdom Parliamentary and local elections brought by a prisoner serving a life sentence in England for manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility, whose tariff period had expired without his release. Scoppola was a claim relating to disenfranchisement under Italian law brought by a prisoner serving a sentence of 30 years imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and other offences. In between these two decisions came Greens and MT v United Kingdom (2010) 53 EHRR 710, in which a simple Chamber applied the principles in Hirst (No 2) to complaints of ineligibility to vote in both European and United Kingdom Parliamentary elections. More recently simple Chambers have applied the principles in Hirst (No 2) and Scoppola in Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia (Application Nos 11157/04 and 15162/05) (unreported), 4 July 2013, and Söyler v Turkey (Application No 29411/07) (unreported), 17 September 2013. 19. In Greens the Strasbourg Court gave the United Kingdom six months to introduce legislative proposals to amend RPA section 3, a period subsequently extended first pending the decision in Scoppola and then to six months after the Grand Chamber decision in Scoppola, delivered 22 May 2012. A draft Bill was published for pre-legislative scrutiny on 22 November 2012 (Cm 8499) and a joint select committee was established to undertake this and to report by 31 October 2013. As envisaged in Hirst (No 2), para 83, the United Kingdom government has continued in this regard to liaise with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which has on 6 December 2012 accepted the draft bill and the establishment of the committee as a legitimate means of implementing the judgment in Greens, and at its meeting on 26 September 2013, noted with interest that the pre-legislative scrutiny by the committee was now due to be completed by 31 October 2013, underlined the urgency of bringing the legislative process to a conclusion, urged the United Kingdom authorities to provide information on the proposed legislative timescale without further delay and decided to resume Page 14

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice

Judgment

Alleged Acts: Two plaintiffs claimed their rights were infringed based on their disenfranchisement. The first plaintiff served the entirety of his sentence and filed suit under the United Kingdom’s Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 claiming that his right to vote in the European Parliamentary Elections was infringed. The second plaintiff finished his sentence, but had several intervening violent offenses and filed his suit under the European Union law exclusively claiming that his right to vote municipal and Scottish Parliamentary elections was infringed.

Procedural history: The lower courts dismissed both claims. The first plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because the court found that it was not their role to sanction the government for delay in implementing the European Court of Human Rights ruling Hirst v. United Kingdom. The second plaintiff’s claim was dismissed because the included the Scottish Parliamentary which were not considered municipal elections and the EU law required the right to vote in municipal elections in member states where the citizen is residing but not citizen. Therefore, the local municipal elections also did not apply. The second plaintiff was denied the opportunity to amend the complaint to include European Parliamentary Elections.

Summary: The court determined that the law does not incorporate any additional voting rights as those outlined in the European Court of Human Rights. If there were relevant provisions that engaged a right to vote beyond the European Court of Human Rights, the court here could merely declare the two inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s laws. Further, the court may not create laws to bring any alleged compatibility, that role would be reserved for Parliament.

Conclusion: Both appeals for infringing voting rights are dismissed are dismissed.

Legal Issue(s)

Judicial Independence
Voter Registration

Region: Europe and Eurasia

Country: United Kingdom

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: Oct 16, 2013

Geolocation

Latitude: 51.58405438621691

Longitude: -0.152343750002267

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Chester v. Secretary of State for Justice

Primary Documents

Notifications