By John Hirst
On 8 April 2009, the Ministry of Justice published a press release announcing that it had launched the second stage of consultation on prisoner voting. The first thing to note is the slow progress this is all taking, given that it is 5 years since the European Court of Human Rights ruled that denying all prisoners the franchise is in violation of Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention. The second thing to note is that the deadline for submissions to the Committee of Ministers, which supervises execution of ECtHR judgments, and is considering Hirst v UK (No2) at its meeting between 2-4 June 2009, is 9 April 2009. If the press release timing is a coincidence, it is rather convenient. The UK is under an obligation not only to abide by the Convention but also abide by the Court decision. Arguments have been forwarded to the Committee of Ministers, not only by lawyers representing prisoners but also by prison reform groups, to show that the government has deliberately delayed implementing measures to comply with the Convention and Court judgment. It looks as if the government is trying to trump these arguments, in effect, by saying “look we are actually doing something about it”.
According to the Ministry of Justice press release: “The government believes it would not be appropriate for all serving prisoners to be able to vote and the consultation does not propose giving all prisoners the vote”. What is this belief based upon, and why is it not deemed appropriate? Labour MP Tom Harris writes on his blog “Let’s get one thing straight: the government does not want to give prisoners the right to vote”. Do any of us care what the government does or does not want? Since when does the loser of a war dictate terms? Barrister Flo Krause writes in an email: “30 March 2004. Hirst v UK App. 74025/01. The UK came, fought and lost. 6 October 2005. Hirst v UK App. 74025/01. The UK came, fought and lost. 9 April 2009. The UK is still pretending it hasn't lost”. The term ‘sore loser’ springs to mind. As the victors, we are entitled to claim the prize, the spoils of war. What this MOJ press release tells me is that it is suffering from a dose of spin doctoring.
Justice Minister Michael Wills said: ‘The government has made it clear that it disagreed with the European Court of Human Rights ruling. However, the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable. But, importantly, the government does not propose to give all prisoners the vote.
‘We will ensure that whatever the outcome of this consultation, the most serious and dangerous offenders held in custody will not be able to vote. Prisoners sentenced to more than four years imprisonment will not be permitted to vote in any circumstances. We believe this is compatible with the court’s judgment and reflects the expectation of the British public that those guilty of the most serious offences should not be entitled to vote while in custody’”.
I am somewhat puzzled how the UK can agree with Article 52 of the Convention: “The judgment of the Court shall be final”, and yet claim it ‘disagrees with the Court ruling’. I don’t know of any public power which allows for such disagreement to be expressed by a public official. What is clear is that the UK has a history of trying to get away with complying with the Court decisions to the minimum extent possible. Hence the damage limitation exercise: “the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable”. Even here, the government appears to be choking on the thought of it. Perhaps a spoonful of sugar will help the medicine go down? In order for me to win my £20 bet at 20/1 odds with bookmakers William Hill, it has to be …“All or the majority of prisoners to get the vote by the next General Election”.
I could not help but notice how often the government parrots the phrase ‘not all prisoners will get the vote’. Why is the government so frightened at this prospect of all prisoners getting the vote? What would happen if all convicted prisoners got the vote? Would they all rise from the Civil Dead like zombies and march out of the prison gates? It is true that the Court judgment did not say that all convicted prisoners must have the vote, it fell short of that, however the Court did say that any departure from the full franchise needs to satisfy the principles of proportionality and legitimacy. In my view, it is with these principles that the government will find difficulty in justifying disenfranchisement based upon severity of crime and length of sentence.
I am amazed that the government decided to have first one consultation exercise, and then a second. Especially given that it was not a feature of the judgment. I did raise the point that the issue of prisoners’ votes had not been the subject of debate in Parliament; so I would have thought if the government sought to comply with the judgment, then surely putting the matter before Parliament would have sufficed? The obvious problems with both of these consultation exercises are that they lack both due process and fair procedures for any claim to legitimacy. Note how it is claimed that the government’s view …“reflects the expectation of the British public that those guilty of the most serious offences should not be entitled to vote while in custody”. I thought the whole purpose of a consultation exercise was to elicit the views of the public, and not tell them what their views are?
Even though in the first consultation exercise the government said that full enfranchisement was not an option the majority (47%) disagreed with the government and said that there should be full enfranchisement. And only 22% supported continued full disenfranchisement, an option which the government allowed even though it was aware that this was unlawful as a result of the judgment. Therefore it is not the public that is against prisoners getting the vote; rather, it is knee-jerking to this kind of headline, in response to the MOJ press release, from the Daily Express, which scares the government: “EUROPE SAYS: GIVE VOTE TO CONVICTS – thousands of rapists, killers and ¬paedophiles will get the right to vote after ministers caved in to pressure from Europe, it emerged last night”. Neither the government nor papers like the Sun, Daily Express and Daily Mail are a voice for the prisoners. In my view, all convicted prisoners getting the vote will mean that their voice is heard in Parliament for the first time in British history.
No comments:
Post a Comment