LibCons: Defending the indefensible?
Bearing in mind Frodl v Austria (8 April 2010)...
Labour's position was...
"The delay in implementing the judgment inevitably leads to the Strasbourg Court being burdened by repetitive applications. Since the decision in Hirst another three applications challenging the blanket ban on prisoners voting have been lodged against the UK in Strasbourg. Another two cases challenging similar bans in Russia and the Czech Republic are pending.[111] We understand that the Government intends to defend the cases against the UK, with the associated costs to the taxpayer. If the Government continues to neglect its duty under Article 46 ECHR to remove the blanket ban on prisoners voting, further cases will arise. We consider that the longer the ban remains in place the greater the incentive will be for existing prisoners - and in particular, if the ban remains in place at the general election, those prisoners denied the right to vote in the election - to bring further applications to the European Court of Human Rights challenging the blanket ban...So long as the Government continues to delay removal of the blanket ban on prisoner voting, it risks not only political embarrassment at the Council of Europe, but also the potentially significant cost of repeat litigation and any associated compensation".
What is the LibCon position following the election?
And, what are those twats at Taxpayers Alliance going to say and do about this cost to the taxpayers?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment