Ban on prisoner votes ‘breaches human rights’

A British law, which prevents prisoners from voting, could change, after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it was in breach of human rights.

More than 70,000 prisoners in Britain could be given the right to vote, if the current law was to change.

The case was brought by former prisoner John Hirst, who was imprisoned for manslaughter, after killing his landlady in 1980. Under the 1983 Representation of the People Act, Mr Hirst was banned from voting.

He took his case to the High Court, while still serving his sentence at Rye Hill prison in Warwickshire, arguing that the Act was in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. He lost the case, but appealed to a seven-judge chamber of the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, which backed him and awarded him £8,000 in costs and expenses.

The government appealed against the ruling, but the full 17-judge Grand Chamber of the court upheld it on Wednesday.

Commenting on the judgement, Mr Hirst, who was released from prison last year, said: “The human rights court has agreed with me that the government’s position is wrong – it doesn’t matter how heinous the crime, everyone is entitled to have the basic human right to vote.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Constitutional Affairs said that it would give “urgent consideration” to the Strasbourg court’s ruling and would bring forward proposals “in due course”.

The Prison Reform Trust has welcomed the decision. Director Juliet Lyon said: “This judgement confirms that people are sent to prison to lose their liberty, not their identity or their citizenship.”

However, the ruling has been criticised by the Conservatives. Shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: “Giving prisoners the vote would be ludicrous. If convicted rapists and murderers are given the vote, it will bring the law into disrepute and many people will see it as making a mockery of justice.”

(KMcA/GB)