Prisoner's High Court battle for the right to vote

Prisoner's High Court battle for the right to vote

If newspaper reports accurately reflect Mr Justice Burton's comments in the Prisoners Votes Case, it would appear that the judge has not got a grasp of the situation and that he is totally out of his depth. If this is the case, then it does not bode well for justice. Personally, I would have more faith in the system if Mr Justice Elias had instead been given the case.

Peter Chester is arguing that as a post-tariff lifer, he should be entitled to vote. The argument is based upon the government's position that those undergoing punishment should be denied the vote. Once a lifer has served the punitive element of a sentence, the tariff, the lifer is no longer officially being punished. The justification for continued detention is based upon continuing risk to the public if released. Therefore, there is a legal distinction between those lifers serving their tariffs and those in the post-tariff stage.

Unfortunately, in my case the European Court of Human Rights left the question unanswered.

However, the problem really stems from the failure of the High Court judges in my case. There was a clear abdication of responsibility. All that was required was for the judges to declare that section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 was incompatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights. Instead, the judges deferred to Parliament. The ECtHR begged to differ.

At the very least, Mr Justice Burton must declare s.3 of RPA 1983 is incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The government concedes this position. This case not only requires that the judge has full knowledge of the subject, but also has the courage to do the right thing in the face of government opposition. It means Mr Justice Burton ruling against his boss Jack Straw, the Minister of Justice and Lord Chancellor.

In those countries which allow prisoners to vote, they do not vote in the constituency where the prison is located, so as not to skew an election result, but instead vote in the constituency of their last known address upon being charged. Therefore, in this respect, Mr Justice Burton's fears are ungrounded "Mr Justice Burton said in places such as Wakefield, West Yorkshire, where Chester is being held along with 740 other prisoners, allowing all prisoners the vote would tip the electoral balance in the inmates’ favour in council elections. He said: 'If the entire population of Wakefield Prison were allowed to vote in that district, that would make quite a difference to an election in Wakefield, particularly if, like Peter Chester, they have the time to sit down and read the newspaper.'".

The judge should not concern himself with such issues as what if this and what if that.

It may also be that Chester's legal representative, Hugh Southey, has not got a full grasp of the case too. However, as I have not seen the grounds for judicial review I must at this stage give him the benefit of doubt. If he has not challenged and sought the quashing of the consultation exercise then he has acted negligently.