Acceptable or not? The United Kingdom's position on prisoner voting rights.

The United Kingdom has a blanket legislation that restricts the rights of prisoners to vote. This legislation raises much controversy and questions on the violation of Human Rights. This legislation has been referred to the European Court of Human Rights and most recently subjected to a very comprehensive debate in the House of Commons in February 2011. This paper will attempt to show a chronology of the state of affairs as pertain to the legislation as well as form an opinion on the acceptability of the United Kingdom’s position on prisoner voting rights.The disqualification under Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 does not apply to prisoners imprisoned for contempt of court  or following default in non-compliance with a sentence such as payment of a fine  and, since the passage of the Representation of the People Act 2000, no longer effects prisoners held on remand.

In Hirst  the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that S.3 of the 1983 Act directly contravened the provisions ECHR art.3 Protocol 1 with its blanket ban of prisoner voting rights. They however confirmed that individual rights as stipulated by Art.3 Protocol 1 are not absolute, but cautioned that any limitations to the right to vote must not impair the “very essence” of ECHR art.3 Protocol 1.   S.3 of the 1983 Act was criticised for being a “blunt instrument” which imposed a “blanket restriction” and as such did not reflect “any direct link between the facts of any individual case and the removal of the right to vote”.  The violation of ECHR art.3 Protocol 1 was found by 12 votes to 5 and it is most significant to note that the British Judge, Sir Nicholas Bratza, voted with the majority.  A few cases that further reinforce the decision in the Hirst case include Green V United Kingdom and Frodl v Austria.   Essentially, S.3 of the 1983 Act has not been amended since the Hirst case, As a result, prisoners have been ineligible to vote in the general election in the United Kingdom in May 2010.

The case of Scoppola v Italy is noteworthy as it shows the latest attempt of the European Court of Human Rights in deliberating over  a blanket ban on prisoners’ right to vote. It held that a blanket ban constituted an automatic and indiscriminate restriction of a vitally important Convention right falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide that margin may be". It held that a decision on disenfranchisement should be taken by a court and should be duly reasoned. While it was not disputed that the permanent voting ban imposed on the applicant had a legal basis in Italian law, the application of that measure was automatic since it derived as a matter of course from the main penalty imposed on him (life imprisonment). That general measure had been applied indiscriminately, having been taken irrespective of the offence committed and with no consideration by the lower court of the nature and degree of offence. The possibility that the applicant might one day be rehabilitated by a decision of a court did not in any way alter that finding. Thus, having regard to the automatic nature of the ban on voting and its indiscriminate application, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.

It can be seen that section 3 of the 1983 Act imposes a restriction on prisoners’ voting rights, which runs contrary to Article 3 protocol 1 of the ECtHR that creates an individual right to vote which must not be disproportionately restricted. The House of Commons recently deliberated on this matter and the debate highlighted the rule of law, the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers as to how human rights should be defined. Various UK public officers and MP’s have expressed a strong opposition to  allowing prisoners the right to vote and while there is a need for an acceptable and uniform framework of Human Rights in Europe, the peculiarity of individual nations must be taken into consideration. The yardstick within which the term acceptable is to be measured is difficult to interpret as a plethora of divergent opinions create an impasse. It is yet to be seen as to when the UK would comply with the ECHR rulings and if it does the class of prisoners affected.