Prisoner Voting Rights

The first group essay focused on the blanket ban on voting imposed by the United Kingdom on prisoners. The major focus was on European law and how it requires the United Kingdom to amend its laws pursuant to the Human Rights Act 1998. The UK disenfranchisement of voting rights for prisoner is derivative of the concept of ‘Civic death’ from the Forfeiture Act 1870. The principal case relied on was Hirst v United Kingdom; which was about a man who was convicted of manslaughter attempting to reclaim his right to vote. The ECHR ruled section 3 Peoples Representation Act 1983 to be incompatible with article 3 ECPHR 1950 protocol 1.

The test used by the courts, disenfranchisement incurred up on the prisoner must have a link with the offense committed by the prisoner for which he had been convicted. The recent cases of Frodl v Austria and Scoppola v Italy (No. 3) both had the ‘Hirst Test’ applied to them and the domestic courts judgments overturned.

In Frodl the ECHR went on to add that disenfranchisement of voting rights for prisoners can be incurred on prisoner who would have committed electoral fraud, or abuse of a public office. 

In Scoppola, the courts held that a violation of article 3 ECPHR 1950 Protocol 1 was committed with Italy’s ‘automatic and indiscriminating restriction on convention rights held to be vital; thus falling outside any acceptable margin of appreciation’.

In Green v United Kingdom the court had applied the ‘Hirst Test’ and established incompatibility and it went on to place a notice of 6 months on the UK to change its current incompatible legislation and adhere to article 3 ECPHR 1950 Protocol 1,the UK’s response is yet to be seen.