Rapists, paedophiles and burglars get the vote as Government prepares to lift prisoners' election ban

Rapists, paedophiles and burglars get the vote as Government prepares to lift prisoners' election ban

By James Slack
Last updated at 8:42 AM on 09th April 2009

Rapists, paedophiles, burglars and muggers could be among 28,800 prisoners handed the right to vote, it emerged last night.

The Government is preparing to demolish 1,000 years of legal practice by proposing that inmates serving up to four years in jail will be allowed to help elect MPs and councillors.

Labour is implementing a verdict by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled five years ago that it was unfair to stop convicts casting their vote.

The case was brought by axe killer John Hirst, who became the self-styled ' jailhouse lawyer'.

The Strasbourg court said a blanket ban was illegal - but did not specify all prisoners must be entitled to vote. Discretion on how it should be implemented was left to ministers.

Last night, the scale of the revolution proposed by the Government caused shockwaves. With as many as 29,000 votes up for grabs, it raises the prospect of politicians having to canvass for votes inside prison.

Tory justice spokesman Dominic Grieve said: 'Many people will question whether this is a sensible development.

'The principle that those who are in custody after conviction should not have the opportunity to vote is a perfectly rational one.

'Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been flagrantly violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences.

'The Government must allow a parliamentary debate which gives MPs the opportunity to insist on retaining our existing practice that convicted prisoners can't vote.'

Mark Wallace, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'It would be disgusting to let tens of thousands of criminals have an equal vote as the lawabiding majority.

'These convicts never gave a second thought to the rights of others when they committed their crimes so their right to vote should be forfeited.

'The Government should get a backbone and start standing up for British people by simply refusing to do what the European Court of Human Rights says.'

Setting out the proposals, Justice Minister Michael Wills said giving some prisoners the vote was 'unavoidable' because of the European ruling.

He suggested four options, including automatic enfranchisement for prisoners serving less than a year, less than two years or less than four years.

Prisoners serving more than four years will not be considered. The two or four-year limits would include exemptions for criminals who had committed certain offences, though these are not specified. Another option is to give the vote to those serving sentences of up to two years but allow prisoners serving sentences of up to four years the right to appeal to a judge to grant them specific permission.

If the limit were to be set at four years, 28,800 prisoners would be entitled to vote. If it were set at one or two years, 6,700 and 13,900 prisoners respectively would become entitled to vote.

In 2007, those sentenced to less than four years of prison included: 154 people convicted of manslaughter, 10,060 people convicted of wounding, 78 rapists, and 1,425 other sex offenders.

Up to 2,285 foreign prisoners from EU and Commonwealth countries may even become entitled to vote in certain elections, despite Gordon Brown's pledge to deport foreign prisoners.

Ministers have been accused of dragging their feet over the implementation of the ruling, made in 2004 and confirmed in 2005 - not least by Hirst, who has been released from jail.

The proposals come only a week after a senior judge launched a withering attack on the Strasbourg court.

Lord Hoffman, the second most senior Law Lord, said the court 'has been unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to impose uniform rules on Member States'. The Ministry of Justice document does not list any category of offender who would be barred.

But officials point to the fact that Ministers' favoured option is to give the vote only to those sentenced to less than a year.

Mr Wills said the Government has made it clear that it disagreed with the court's ruling.

He added: 'However, the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable.

'We will ensure whatever the outcome of this consultation, the most serious and dangerous offenders held in custody will not be able to vote.'

Axe killer turned campaigner



'Killing my landlady was an abuse of power. By the same token, the state is abusing power in relation to the prisoner votes case and refusing to rectify the situation.'

So declared axe killer John Hirst, pictured right, on his internet site last month, as he prepared to threaten the Government with a judicial review if it did not implement the European court's 2005 ruling that inmates must be allowed to vote.

Last night, with the publication of Labour's proposals, the 'jailhouse lawyer' got his wish. The road which led to Hirst demolishing 1,000 years of British law began in June 1979, at a small house in Reading.

Widow Bronia Burton asked Hirst, her lodger, to bring in some coal. Minutes later, the 69-year-old was dead, the victim of an unprovoked axe attack. Having spotted the weapon in the shed outside, Hirst hit her seven times in the head.

He was jailed for 25 years for manslaughter. Much of his time was spent in segregation units after violent outbursts, usually aimed at prison staff.

But during a visit to his jail by the then director of the Prison Reform Trust, Stephen Shaw, his life changed.

Mr Shaw gave Hirst a book on prison rules and the killer became fascinated by the law, studying 16 hours a day. Eventually he started taking cases for other inmates and even wardens, and winning. He studied with the Open University and started a 'Prison Law Advice Centre' from his cell.

Hirst is now 57, and living in Hull. In his blog, he writes: 'I was transformed from a law breaker into a law-maker.'