Jailhouselawyer's Blog

I will ask the question if nobody else will, what is someone as corrupt, or incompetent, or both, as Charles Falconer doing in a public office? I know he is a friend of Tony Blair and that the Prime Minister appointed him to office. However, the Department of Constitutional Affairs is responsible for justice, rights and democracy. In my view, the Prisoners' voting rights consultation paper Written ministerial statement http://www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/statements/2006/st061214.htm by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton, appears to be irresponsibly drafted. In other words, it is another dodgy document.

It cannot be comfortable for the government to be taken to the highest court in Europe by a legally unqualified jailhouselawyer, who suffers from a form of autism called Aspergers Syndrome, and to suffer such a humiliating defeat when their qualified lawyers were unable to defend the indefensible. I pay attention to detail. For example, Lord Falconer's opening paragraph is not only outdated but is also nonsensical. He claims that the right to vote in the UK is a privilege. A right is one thing and a privilege is another. In HIRST v. The United Kingdom (No2)(Application No. 74025/01), “The applicant submitted that the right to vote was one of the most fundamental rights which underpinned a truly democratic society. It was not a privilege, contrary to the view expressed by the Secretary of State in February 2001”. The Court agreed with my argument. Having lost this argument, why is the Lord Chancellor regurgitating it here? He claims that his view has the considered support of many, but does not produce any evidence to support his claim. He claims “that persons who are convicted of an offence serious enough to warrant a term in prison have cast aside that privilege and entitlement for the duration of their sentence”. However, “the Court does not consider that a Contracting State may rely on the margin of appreciation to justify restrictions on the right to vote which have not been the subject of considered debate in the legislature and which derive, essentially, from unquestioning and passive adherence to a historic tradition”.

For the first time in history the government was questioned on its blanket ban on convicted prisoners being denied the franchise. It looked around for justification. The best the government could come up with was arguments that the Canadian government had already argued and lost in court. Therefore, it is untruthful to claim that “Successive UK Governments have held to the view that the right to vote forms part of the social contract between individuals and the State, and the loss of the right to vote, reflected in current law, is a proper and proportionate punishment for breaches of the social contract that resulted in imprisonment. That remains this Government's position, and that of a number of other Council of Europe states”. The government lost first in the Chamber, and then lost its appeal to the Grand Chamber, and then has the audacity to claim it still holds those views after two defeats? Before the case, a minority of Member States operated blanket bans on prisoner voting. As a result of the case, these Member States have changed their position. The UK is alone on this one, the odd man out in Europe.

Because the government is in an uncomfortable position, it has resorted to the tactic of procrastination. As the issue has to be debated in Parliament, the consultation process is a meaningless exercise. When the government did not want to give women the vote, it decided to talk about women and the vote rather than give women the vote. This is just history repeating itself. I suspect that the government is trying to drag it out until after the next election. The published consultation document does not consider the principles of prisoner enfranchisement, nor does it include all the options available to the UK. Moreover, the document puts up for consideration the total disenfranchisement for all convicted prisoners, which the Court has ruled out as not being within the terms of the Convention.

Given that the government recognises that it must respond to the Grand Chamber judgment. Why does it not recognise that it should respond with honesty?