Previous 50 / 64 Next

LORD CLARKE 104. I agree that these appeals should be disposed of as proposed by Lord Mance and Lord Sumption. 105. I also agree with the reasoning of both Lord Mance and Lord Sumption, subject to this. I would be less critical than Lord Sumption of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights to which they refer. The reasoning of the Strasbourg Court has very recently been summarised in Anchugov and Gladkov v Russia (Application Nos 11157/04 and 15162/05), 4 July 2013, at paras 93-100. In particular, in para 100 it distinguished between Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) 42 EHRR 849 and Scoppola v Italy (No 3) (2012) 56 EHRR 663 in this way: “100. The principles set out in the Hirst (No 2) case were later reaffirmed in the Scoppola (No 3) [GC] judgment. The Court reiterated, in particular, that when disenfranchisement affected a group of people generally, automatically and indiscriminately, based solely on the fact that they are serving a prison sentence, irrespective of the length of the sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances, it was not compatible with Article 3 of Protocol No 1 (see Scoppola (No 3) [GC], cited above, para 96). The Court found no violation of that Convention provision in the particular circumstances of this latter case however, having distinguished it from the Hirst (No 2) case. It observed that in Italy disenfranchisement was applied only in respect of certain offences against the State or the judicial system, or offences punishable by a term of imprisonment of three years or more, that is, those which the courts considered to warrant a particularly harsh sentence. The Court thus considered that ‘the legal provisions in Italy defining the circumstances in which individuals may be deprived of the right to vote show[ed] the legislature’s concern to adjust the application of the measure to the particular circumstances of [each] case, taking into account such factors as the gravity of the offence committed and the conduct of the offender’ (ibid, para 106). As a result, the Italian system could not be said to have a general automatic and indiscriminate character, and therefore the Italian authorities had not overstepped the margin of appreciation afforded to them in that sphere (ibid, paras 108 and 110). Page 49

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