Google Blacklists Prison Planet.com
November 30, 2010 by Infowars Ireland
You Tube freezes Alex Jones Channel as web censorship accelerates in frightening early salvo of move towards tiered Internet system that favors large corporations while strangling independent voices
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
In a damning new lurch towards web censorship, Google’s news aggregator has blacklisted Prison Planet and Infowars despite the fact that both websites are internationally known and now attract more traffic than many mainstream media websites, while Google-owned You Tube has frozen the Alex Jones Channel based on a spurious complaint about showing Wikileaks footage that has been carried on hundreds of other You Tube channels for months.
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.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
How Prison-based Gerrymandering Dilutes Native American Political Power
How Prison-based Gerrymandering Dilutes Native American Political Power
While Prison Law Blog was enjoying last week’s Thanksgiving break, I noticed several reports from our friends at the Prison Policy Initiative on how prison-based gerrymandering can dilute Native American political power in states where natives are disproportionately incarcerated. That’s basically every state with a significant native population: here are charts showing how Native Americans are overrepresented in Hawaii, Alaska, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Vermont, Iowa, and Michigan, to name a few. Hawaii not only disproportionately incarcerates native Hawaiians but also ships most of its inmates to private prisons on the mainland, further skewing its Census results. But let’s look more closely at Montana. From a 2004 Prison Policy Initiative report:
How the incarcerated are counted in Montana is of critical importance to an accurate count of Native American communities. While Native Americans are 6% of the Montana population, more than 20% the incarcerated people in the state are Native American. Native American women are the same 6% of Montana women, but are 32% of the incarcerated women in the state. Native Americans in Montana are incarcerated at a rate more than 4 times higher than the White residents of the state.
Many critics of prison-based gerrymandering focus (rightly) on the practice’s effects on African-American communities, but it’s worth noting that prison-based gerrymandering (especially when combined with felon voting bans, although that’s a separate issue) dilutes the political power of any group that is disproportionately incarcerated. For that matter, prison-based gerrymandering also dilutes the political power of anyone who doesn’t live near a prison. As always, the Prisoners of the Census blog offers a wealth of resources on this topic.
While Prison Law Blog was enjoying last week’s Thanksgiving break, I noticed several reports from our friends at the Prison Policy Initiative on how prison-based gerrymandering can dilute Native American political power in states where natives are disproportionately incarcerated. That’s basically every state with a significant native population: here are charts showing how Native Americans are overrepresented in Hawaii, Alaska, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Vermont, Iowa, and Michigan, to name a few. Hawaii not only disproportionately incarcerates native Hawaiians but also ships most of its inmates to private prisons on the mainland, further skewing its Census results. But let’s look more closely at Montana. From a 2004 Prison Policy Initiative report:
How the incarcerated are counted in Montana is of critical importance to an accurate count of Native American communities. While Native Americans are 6% of the Montana population, more than 20% the incarcerated people in the state are Native American. Native American women are the same 6% of Montana women, but are 32% of the incarcerated women in the state. Native Americans in Montana are incarcerated at a rate more than 4 times higher than the White residents of the state.
Many critics of prison-based gerrymandering focus (rightly) on the practice’s effects on African-American communities, but it’s worth noting that prison-based gerrymandering (especially when combined with felon voting bans, although that’s a separate issue) dilutes the political power of any group that is disproportionately incarcerated. For that matter, prison-based gerrymandering also dilutes the political power of anyone who doesn’t live near a prison. As always, the Prisoners of the Census blog offers a wealth of resources on this topic.
Prison Chaplains attack inhumane conditions behind prison walls
Prison Chaplains attack inhumane conditions behind prison walls
PRESS RELEASE
29 December 2010
Prison chaplains have produced another grim report on conditions in the country’s prisons, saying violence and drug use continues to escalate in prisons and overcrowding is adding to inhumane conditions.
The report says “conditions in many of our prisons are an insult to the decency of any human being and an affront to the basic tenets of decency,” and they say a culture of conformity exists within the system which resists any criticism or challenge.
There are 27 prison chaplains, priests, religious and lay people, working in 14 prisons in Ireland. They work every day with men and women who are imprisoned, and their families.
Fr Ciarán Enright of the chaplaincy team in Arbour Hill Prison said, “It is frustrating and depressing to have to come out with similar reports year after year, with little or no sign of any positive action being taken by those in charge.” He said chaplains blame a politicisation of the criminal justice system, which is failing to address the real issue of crime and prevention.
Overcrowding got so bad this year that on one night during the summer 129 prisoners in Mountjoy had no beds to sleep in – and some did not even have a mattress to sleep on. In Wheatfield a 75 year old male prisoner was sleeping on a mattress on the floor. Up to four men can be placed in a cell with no toilet facilities - other than a chamber pot - the same space they have to live and sleep in.
The chaplains also highlight how leaks to the media concerning prisoners are destructive of their attempts to manage their sentences and to resettle in the community. They single out the management and leaks around the release of Larry Murphy as resulting in a “media circus” which fuelled fear and anxiety in society. The endangerment of a person’s life and the creation of unnecessary panic among the public is of concern to them. In another incident this year, some media were waiting outside a hospital when a prisoner was escorted to an outpatient appointment.
On violence they state prisoners are under threat from inside and outside prison walls and “the most common form of attack is to use a blade to slash a prisoner’s face, leaving a long and permanent scar, often from ear to mouth.”
St Patrick’s Institution for young people and children (16 to 21) is highlighted as a cause of serious concern. Chaplains say:
* St Patrick's is in direct contravention of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which prohibits the imprisonment of children (under 18s) with adults. Protections, regulation and guidelines relating to children in institutional care do not apply in St Patrick’s.
* The Ombudsman for Children is explicitly prohibited from investigating complaints or allegation by young people in St Patrick’s
* One in four of the young prisoners are 'on protection' - locked up for 23 hours a day with nothing to do.
* The prison workshops for young people are described as “a waste of money providing no useful training”.
The report recommends the pressing need to explore non-custodial options for prisoners who have committed less serious offences. It concludes “Current prison policy is a disaster for both prisons and society. Making our prisons safer and drug free is in everyone’s interest. The only obstacle is political will.”
ENDS
A full copy of the report is now available on www.catholicbishops.ie and www.dublindiocese.ie
PRESS RELEASE
29 December 2010
Prison chaplains have produced another grim report on conditions in the country’s prisons, saying violence and drug use continues to escalate in prisons and overcrowding is adding to inhumane conditions.
The report says “conditions in many of our prisons are an insult to the decency of any human being and an affront to the basic tenets of decency,” and they say a culture of conformity exists within the system which resists any criticism or challenge.
There are 27 prison chaplains, priests, religious and lay people, working in 14 prisons in Ireland. They work every day with men and women who are imprisoned, and their families.
Fr Ciarán Enright of the chaplaincy team in Arbour Hill Prison said, “It is frustrating and depressing to have to come out with similar reports year after year, with little or no sign of any positive action being taken by those in charge.” He said chaplains blame a politicisation of the criminal justice system, which is failing to address the real issue of crime and prevention.
Overcrowding got so bad this year that on one night during the summer 129 prisoners in Mountjoy had no beds to sleep in – and some did not even have a mattress to sleep on. In Wheatfield a 75 year old male prisoner was sleeping on a mattress on the floor. Up to four men can be placed in a cell with no toilet facilities - other than a chamber pot - the same space they have to live and sleep in.
The chaplains also highlight how leaks to the media concerning prisoners are destructive of their attempts to manage their sentences and to resettle in the community. They single out the management and leaks around the release of Larry Murphy as resulting in a “media circus” which fuelled fear and anxiety in society. The endangerment of a person’s life and the creation of unnecessary panic among the public is of concern to them. In another incident this year, some media were waiting outside a hospital when a prisoner was escorted to an outpatient appointment.
On violence they state prisoners are under threat from inside and outside prison walls and “the most common form of attack is to use a blade to slash a prisoner’s face, leaving a long and permanent scar, often from ear to mouth.”
St Patrick’s Institution for young people and children (16 to 21) is highlighted as a cause of serious concern. Chaplains say:
* St Patrick's is in direct contravention of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which prohibits the imprisonment of children (under 18s) with adults. Protections, regulation and guidelines relating to children in institutional care do not apply in St Patrick’s.
* The Ombudsman for Children is explicitly prohibited from investigating complaints or allegation by young people in St Patrick’s
* One in four of the young prisoners are 'on protection' - locked up for 23 hours a day with nothing to do.
* The prison workshops for young people are described as “a waste of money providing no useful training”.
The report recommends the pressing need to explore non-custodial options for prisoners who have committed less serious offences. It concludes “Current prison policy is a disaster for both prisons and society. Making our prisons safer and drug free is in everyone’s interest. The only obstacle is political will.”
ENDS
A full copy of the report is now available on www.catholicbishops.ie and www.dublindiocese.ie
Justice Secretary savaged over porn for prisoners move
Justice Secretary savaged over porn for prisoners move
EXCLUSIVE: Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor
28 Nov 2010
Prisoners will soon be able to enjoy more than 100 digital TV channels in their cells, including soft-core porn, because of European regulations, the Sunday Herald can reveal.
The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) recently announced plans to buy 1600 flat screen TVs with built-in DVD players for its 8000 inmates.
The first 280 sets are due for delivery to Shotts, home to some of Scotland’s worst criminals, by March.
News of the order provoked a furious reaction from opposition MSPs, who said it would disgust ordinary members of the public.
In its initial tender document, the SPS said the sets must not contain digital TV tuners so that prison governors would be able to restrict content and supply channels through a central TV feed.
However, last week the SPS changed the specification for the 19-inch sets by deleting that restriction on digital tuners.
It means the TVs will be able to receive more than 100 Freeview channels, including late night adult content like Babestation, just like any other set.
An SPS spokesman said the phasing out of the current analogue TV signal and the switchover to digital meant there was a European requirement for all new sets to have digital tuners.
It was also cheaper to buy standard sets rather than specially adapted ones, he said. Supermarkets sell sets of the type required for as little as £130.
The spokesman confirmed prisoners with access to sets would be able to watch the full range of Freeview channels 24 hours a day, provided they did not cause a nuisance to others.
“There is a standard that says if you are producing TV sets for Europe they need digital tuners because analogue is disappearing,” he said.
Asked if the content would be restricted to a central feed, he added: “Those days are over.”
Each set will receive a standard signal from prison aerials, and this will then be converted into the full range of digital channels by the tuners.
However, he stressed that access to a TV was regarded as a privilege and was not automatic. Prisoners currently pay around £1 a week for access to an in-cell TV, a fee which means the new sets pay for themselves.
Richard Baker, the Labour justice spokesman, said the new development was another black mark against Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
He said: “Prison is not supposed to be a home away from home. The public will be furious at the thought of offenders being allowed to watch hundreds of Freeview channels of their choice on brand new TVs.
“It would be outrageous if inmates were permitted to view soft pornography and this must not be allowed to happen.
“The SNP government can’t justify spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on flat screen TVs for prisons at a time when law abiding people are worried about their jobs in the face of public sector cuts. This is more evidence of Kenny MacAskill’s soft touch approach to justice.”
Glasgow MSP Bill Aitken, the Conservative justice spokesman, added: “I intend to pursue this matter with the Justice Secretary.
“Our molly-coddled, undeserving prisoners seem to have every convenience in the jails, including the capacity to watch soft porn. It’s soft touch Scotland personified.”
TVs have been a feature of Scottish prison cells since 1999.
In February, SPS announced it wanted to buy 1000 traditional 14-inch cathode ray TVs, but by October it had upgraded the order to 1600 flatscreen models.
It then changed it again to include built-in DVD players.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “Over 27,000 in-cell TVs have been purchased by the prison service in England and Wales in the past two years and as in Scotland, prisoners have to pay a weekly fee for their use and any purchase of equipment is paid for by prisoners themselves. In-cell televisions have been a feature of prison since 1999 under the previous administration.
“While this is an operational matter for the SPS, the Justice Secretary will ask SPS to provide a full report about the tender.”
EXCLUSIVE: Tom Gordon, Scottish Political Editor
28 Nov 2010
Prisoners will soon be able to enjoy more than 100 digital TV channels in their cells, including soft-core porn, because of European regulations, the Sunday Herald can reveal.
The Scottish Prison Service (SPS) recently announced plans to buy 1600 flat screen TVs with built-in DVD players for its 8000 inmates.
The first 280 sets are due for delivery to Shotts, home to some of Scotland’s worst criminals, by March.
News of the order provoked a furious reaction from opposition MSPs, who said it would disgust ordinary members of the public.
In its initial tender document, the SPS said the sets must not contain digital TV tuners so that prison governors would be able to restrict content and supply channels through a central TV feed.
However, last week the SPS changed the specification for the 19-inch sets by deleting that restriction on digital tuners.
It means the TVs will be able to receive more than 100 Freeview channels, including late night adult content like Babestation, just like any other set.
An SPS spokesman said the phasing out of the current analogue TV signal and the switchover to digital meant there was a European requirement for all new sets to have digital tuners.
It was also cheaper to buy standard sets rather than specially adapted ones, he said. Supermarkets sell sets of the type required for as little as £130.
The spokesman confirmed prisoners with access to sets would be able to watch the full range of Freeview channels 24 hours a day, provided they did not cause a nuisance to others.
“There is a standard that says if you are producing TV sets for Europe they need digital tuners because analogue is disappearing,” he said.
Asked if the content would be restricted to a central feed, he added: “Those days are over.”
Each set will receive a standard signal from prison aerials, and this will then be converted into the full range of digital channels by the tuners.
However, he stressed that access to a TV was regarded as a privilege and was not automatic. Prisoners currently pay around £1 a week for access to an in-cell TV, a fee which means the new sets pay for themselves.
Richard Baker, the Labour justice spokesman, said the new development was another black mark against Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill.
He said: “Prison is not supposed to be a home away from home. The public will be furious at the thought of offenders being allowed to watch hundreds of Freeview channels of their choice on brand new TVs.
“It would be outrageous if inmates were permitted to view soft pornography and this must not be allowed to happen.
“The SNP government can’t justify spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on flat screen TVs for prisons at a time when law abiding people are worried about their jobs in the face of public sector cuts. This is more evidence of Kenny MacAskill’s soft touch approach to justice.”
Glasgow MSP Bill Aitken, the Conservative justice spokesman, added: “I intend to pursue this matter with the Justice Secretary.
“Our molly-coddled, undeserving prisoners seem to have every convenience in the jails, including the capacity to watch soft porn. It’s soft touch Scotland personified.”
TVs have been a feature of Scottish prison cells since 1999.
In February, SPS announced it wanted to buy 1000 traditional 14-inch cathode ray TVs, but by October it had upgraded the order to 1600 flatscreen models.
It then changed it again to include built-in DVD players.
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “Over 27,000 in-cell TVs have been purchased by the prison service in England and Wales in the past two years and as in Scotland, prisoners have to pay a weekly fee for their use and any purchase of equipment is paid for by prisoners themselves. In-cell televisions have been a feature of prison since 1999 under the previous administration.
“While this is an operational matter for the SPS, the Justice Secretary will ask SPS to provide a full report about the tender.”
The law is an ass: Man in court on blog murder incitement charge
The law is an ass: Man in court on blog murder incitement charge
By John-Paul Ford Rojas, PA
Monday, 29 November 2010
A 23-year-old man appeared in court today charged with soliciting murder in relation to a blog listing MPs who voted for the Iraq war.
Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, of Dunstall Hill, Wolverhampton, appeared at the Old Bailey via videolink.
He remains in custody and is due to go on trial on June 7, at a venue to be decided. A plea and case management hearing will take place on April 15.
It is alleged that he solicited, encouraged, persuaded or endeavoured to persuade persons unknown to murder members of the British Parliament.
He also faces three charges of collecting information of a kind likely to be useful for terrorism.
By John-Paul Ford Rojas, PA
Monday, 29 November 2010
A 23-year-old man appeared in court today charged with soliciting murder in relation to a blog listing MPs who voted for the Iraq war.
Bilal Zaheer Ahmad, of Dunstall Hill, Wolverhampton, appeared at the Old Bailey via videolink.
He remains in custody and is due to go on trial on June 7, at a venue to be decided. A plea and case management hearing will take place on April 15.
It is alleged that he solicited, encouraged, persuaded or endeavoured to persuade persons unknown to murder members of the British Parliament.
He also faces three charges of collecting information of a kind likely to be useful for terrorism.
Upholding basic human rights
Upholding basic human rights
Published Date: 29 November 2010
The judgement giving prisoners the right to vote came from the European Court of Human Rights, whose job is to enforce the European Convention of Human Rights, which is a lot older than the European Union.
This decision is nothing to do with EU membership, so talk of Eurocrats and Brussels is misplaced. If Britain pulled out of the EU this judgement would still apply.
The court ensures fundamental rights are upheld.
It's about time we acknowledged what's good about Europe as well as what needs to change.
Jack Scott, Labour Councillor for Arbourthorne
Comment: The racist UKIP leader Nigel Farage would do well to heed this good advice rather than always bad mouthing Europe and lashing out at the vulnerable group of prisoners in society. "It's about time we acknowledged what's good about Europe as well as what needs to change".
Published Date: 29 November 2010
The judgement giving prisoners the right to vote came from the European Court of Human Rights, whose job is to enforce the European Convention of Human Rights, which is a lot older than the European Union.
This decision is nothing to do with EU membership, so talk of Eurocrats and Brussels is misplaced. If Britain pulled out of the EU this judgement would still apply.
The court ensures fundamental rights are upheld.
It's about time we acknowledged what's good about Europe as well as what needs to change.
Jack Scott, Labour Councillor for Arbourthorne
Comment: The racist UKIP leader Nigel Farage would do well to heed this good advice rather than always bad mouthing Europe and lashing out at the vulnerable group of prisoners in society. "It's about time we acknowledged what's good about Europe as well as what needs to change".
Government ready to cut terror detention limit
Government ready to cut terror detention limit
The Coalition government is preparing to cut the limit for terrorism suspects to be held before charge to 14 days — against the advice of senior lawyers — it can be disclosed.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is attempting to hold on to a refashioned version of control orders despite opposition from Liberal Democrats Photo: REUTERS
By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent 6:20AM GMT 29 Nov 2010
It is understood the change will replace the current 28-day limit with a 14-day limit which will be accompanied by strict bail conditions for a further 14 days, similar to control orders.
However, a number of terrorism suspects have absconded under similar conditions and there are fears the measures proposed may allow al-Qaeda terrorists to escape.
One senior prosecution source told The Daily Telegraph: “We need 28 days — and not a minute longer.”
The upper limit is thought to have fallen foul of a deal, still being hammered out, under which the detention limit is lowered and the police’s anti-terrorism random stop and search powers are abandoned.
In return, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is attempting to hold on to a refashioned version of control orders despite opposition from Liberal Democrats led by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Government is conducting a review of terrorism legislation introduced in the wake of the September 11 attacks but the results have been delayed as the Government examines “every option known to man” to head off a Liberal Democrat revolt, according to one source.
It is understood that Mr Clegg believes control orders — the system of curfews under which terrorism suspects are electronically tagged — should be abolished while Mrs May, who has had extensive briefings from the security services and the police, thinks they must be retained.
The row threatens to split the Coalition if Mr Clegg decides to give his backbenchers a free vote.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, outlines a compromise proposal he has put before the Government in which control orders are replaced by a “three tier” system of restrictions, with travel limits for the less serious cases.
He calls on Mr Clegg to listen to expert opinions and says: “It would be unforgivable to play politics with public safety.”
The Coalition government is preparing to cut the limit for terrorism suspects to be held before charge to 14 days — against the advice of senior lawyers — it can be disclosed.
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is attempting to hold on to a refashioned version of control orders despite opposition from Liberal Democrats Photo: REUTERSBy Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent 6:20AM GMT 29 Nov 2010
It is understood the change will replace the current 28-day limit with a 14-day limit which will be accompanied by strict bail conditions for a further 14 days, similar to control orders.
However, a number of terrorism suspects have absconded under similar conditions and there are fears the measures proposed may allow al-Qaeda terrorists to escape.
One senior prosecution source told The Daily Telegraph: “We need 28 days — and not a minute longer.”
The upper limit is thought to have fallen foul of a deal, still being hammered out, under which the detention limit is lowered and the police’s anti-terrorism random stop and search powers are abandoned.
In return, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is attempting to hold on to a refashioned version of control orders despite opposition from Liberal Democrats led by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Government is conducting a review of terrorism legislation introduced in the wake of the September 11 attacks but the results have been delayed as the Government examines “every option known to man” to head off a Liberal Democrat revolt, according to one source.
It is understood that Mr Clegg believes control orders — the system of curfews under which terrorism suspects are electronically tagged — should be abolished while Mrs May, who has had extensive briefings from the security services and the police, thinks they must be retained.
The row threatens to split the Coalition if Mr Clegg decides to give his backbenchers a free vote.
Writing in The Daily Telegraph, Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, outlines a compromise proposal he has put before the Government in which control orders are replaced by a “three tier” system of restrictions, with travel limits for the less serious cases.
He calls on Mr Clegg to listen to expert opinions and says: “It would be unforgivable to play politics with public safety.”
Prisoners’ right to vote: Ministry monitoring UK developments
Prisoners’ right to vote: Ministry monitoring UK developments
by Scott Grech
The Justice and Home Affairs Ministry, which is headed by Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici, said when contacted that “it is closely following developments in the UK” when asked whether it might look at the possibility of granting Maltese prisoners the right to vote.
In a reply to a parliamentary question by PN MP Ċensu Galea last October, Dr Mifsud Bonnici told parliament that there are 589 prisoners at the Corradino Correctional Facility, of whom 346 are Maltese and 243 are foreigners.
Earlier this month, it was reported by British media that prisoners in the UK are to get the right to vote after ministers conceded defeat in a long-running legal battle with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and accepted that current laws must be changed.
Asked whether the ministry will grant all prisoners the right to vote, the ministry replied: “It has to be noted, however, that the ECHR has not yet ruled that all prisoners should be given voting rights. In view of this, the ministry is in the process of preparing a position on this matter and any further developments will be unveiled in the future”.
A constitutional amendment needing a two thirds majority would be needed if parliament is to pave the way for prisoners to vote and the possibility on whether to grant prisoners this right was debated in a parliamentary debate last March.
The way things stand at the moment in Malta, prisoners serving a prison term longer than one year are not allowed to vote. In recent times, amendments were enacted so as to allow citizens serving a suspended sentence the right to vote.
British Prime Minister David Cameron was reported to be “exasperated and furious” at having to bring to an end the ban on prisoner voting, which the UK has upheld for 140 years, following the ECHR ruling, which also gave Britain’s coalition government six months to amend its current laws.
In their ruling, judges said it was a “cause for regret” that for over five years since the Hirst ruling, no amending measures had been brought forward by the UK government, and ordered the government to fulfil its obligations to secure the right for other prisoners to vote in compliance with the judgment.
However, Britain is expected to retain the ban for murderers and others serving life sentences, while it is also looking at giving judges the responsibility of deciding which criminals should be allowed to vote when they are sentenced.
Britain’s long running legal battle with the ECHR was instigated after convicted killer John Hirst challenged the view that prisoners should automatically be denied the right to vote after they are sentenced.
Prisoner Hirst protested and took the case to the ECHR in March 2004, which in turn ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
UK Ministers appealed to the European Court’s grand chamber, but in October 2005 it upheld the ruling and it was only on 2 November this year that ministers considered defeat in their battle against the ECHR.
by Scott Grech
The Justice and Home Affairs Ministry, which is headed by Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici, said when contacted that “it is closely following developments in the UK” when asked whether it might look at the possibility of granting Maltese prisoners the right to vote.
In a reply to a parliamentary question by PN MP Ċensu Galea last October, Dr Mifsud Bonnici told parliament that there are 589 prisoners at the Corradino Correctional Facility, of whom 346 are Maltese and 243 are foreigners.
Earlier this month, it was reported by British media that prisoners in the UK are to get the right to vote after ministers conceded defeat in a long-running legal battle with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and accepted that current laws must be changed.
Asked whether the ministry will grant all prisoners the right to vote, the ministry replied: “It has to be noted, however, that the ECHR has not yet ruled that all prisoners should be given voting rights. In view of this, the ministry is in the process of preparing a position on this matter and any further developments will be unveiled in the future”.
A constitutional amendment needing a two thirds majority would be needed if parliament is to pave the way for prisoners to vote and the possibility on whether to grant prisoners this right was debated in a parliamentary debate last March.
The way things stand at the moment in Malta, prisoners serving a prison term longer than one year are not allowed to vote. In recent times, amendments were enacted so as to allow citizens serving a suspended sentence the right to vote.
British Prime Minister David Cameron was reported to be “exasperated and furious” at having to bring to an end the ban on prisoner voting, which the UK has upheld for 140 years, following the ECHR ruling, which also gave Britain’s coalition government six months to amend its current laws.
In their ruling, judges said it was a “cause for regret” that for over five years since the Hirst ruling, no amending measures had been brought forward by the UK government, and ordered the government to fulfil its obligations to secure the right for other prisoners to vote in compliance with the judgment.
However, Britain is expected to retain the ban for murderers and others serving life sentences, while it is also looking at giving judges the responsibility of deciding which criminals should be allowed to vote when they are sentenced.
Britain’s long running legal battle with the ECHR was instigated after convicted killer John Hirst challenged the view that prisoners should automatically be denied the right to vote after they are sentenced.
Prisoner Hirst protested and took the case to the ECHR in March 2004, which in turn ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
UK Ministers appealed to the European Court’s grand chamber, but in October 2005 it upheld the ruling and it was only on 2 November this year that ministers considered defeat in their battle against the ECHR.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Don't teach the "granny basher" how to suck eggs!
Don't teach the "granny basher" how to suck eggs!
During 1989-1991 when I was in the Hull Prison Special Unit and first started working on the Prisoners Votes Case, I recall reading in the Guardian that the Prison Advice Service were looking for a qualified solicitor. The advert was re-run a few times, and eventually it was announced that the post was filled by Simon Creighton. I recall speaking to him a couple times on the phone, and I cannot say that I felt impressed by his legal advice.
Meanwhile, Simon Creighton learns a little about prison law at the expense of prisoners being given duff advice and then buggers off to earn a lot as a partner with Bhatt Murphy Solicitors. Prisoners call this selling out.
Fast forward to 2010 and the New Law Journal asks him to express an opinion on my case.
Is it any wonder that the government took over 5 years to fully comply with my case when a so-called specialist in prison law misconstrues Hirst v UK (No2)?
"What the UK was required to do was put forward a rational basis for the loss of the right to vote, for example, that those serving more than ten years in prison should lose the right to vote because the seriousness of their offending has an impact on their citizenship, or that those convicted of election fraud should lose the right to vote".
The Court was very clear that severity of crime and length of sentence were not factors to be taken into account when disenfranchising, only in the limited example for election fraud could the vote be removed.
If Simon Creighton has difficulty reading my judgment then perhaps he will find Frodl v Austria easier? The Court explains in this judgment what the Court stated in Hirst No2.
There is more than a hint of hypocrisy when Simon Creighton accuses the government of being negligent, as he should know what being negligent is!
Prisoners have a choice. They can take the unqualified advice from the man who has not lost a case, or the dodgy advice of a qualified lawyer.
During 1989-1991 when I was in the Hull Prison Special Unit and first started working on the Prisoners Votes Case, I recall reading in the Guardian that the Prison Advice Service were looking for a qualified solicitor. The advert was re-run a few times, and eventually it was announced that the post was filled by Simon Creighton. I recall speaking to him a couple times on the phone, and I cannot say that I felt impressed by his legal advice.
Meanwhile, Simon Creighton learns a little about prison law at the expense of prisoners being given duff advice and then buggers off to earn a lot as a partner with Bhatt Murphy Solicitors. Prisoners call this selling out.
Fast forward to 2010 and the New Law Journal asks him to express an opinion on my case.
Is it any wonder that the government took over 5 years to fully comply with my case when a so-called specialist in prison law misconstrues Hirst v UK (No2)?
"What the UK was required to do was put forward a rational basis for the loss of the right to vote, for example, that those serving more than ten years in prison should lose the right to vote because the seriousness of their offending has an impact on their citizenship, or that those convicted of election fraud should lose the right to vote".
The Court was very clear that severity of crime and length of sentence were not factors to be taken into account when disenfranchising, only in the limited example for election fraud could the vote be removed.
If Simon Creighton has difficulty reading my judgment then perhaps he will find Frodl v Austria easier? The Court explains in this judgment what the Court stated in Hirst No2.
There is more than a hint of hypocrisy when Simon Creighton accuses the government of being negligent, as he should know what being negligent is!
Prisoners have a choice. They can take the unqualified advice from the man who has not lost a case, or the dodgy advice of a qualified lawyer.
Snow scenes back to front
Snow scenes back to front
Taken from Rocky's bedroom a view out the back. Note the German Razor Wire, a familar sight in prison.
Taken from my front door and to the left.
Taken from Rocky's bedroom a view out the back. Note the German Razor Wire, a familar sight in prison.
Taken from my front door and to the left.
Tory MPs divide world into junket territories
Tory MPs divide world into junket territories
Two enterprising MPs have between them managed to sit on more than 100 committees, guaranteeing lavish overseas junkets and VIP treatment (Times £)
Mark Pritchard, pictured, has already visited the Philippines for work (Simeone Giovanni)
Two Tory MPs faced with languishing on the back benches have divided up the world between them to to sit on more than 100 committees that make lavish trips abroad.
They can enjoy luxury travel and exclusive hotels on trips to countries that range from America to Zimbabwe. There they are treated as VIPs and make important contacts. As well as a source of overseas junkets, the groups are seen in Westminster as a potential route into employment for politicians seeking posts as consultants after leaving parliament.
While most MPs usually join no more than a handful of parliamentary country committees, Andrew Rosindell and Mark Pritchard, both 44, are members of 105 between them.
Members of the all-party parliamentary country groups are often flown first-class and put up in smart hotels by foreign governments. They are wined and dined while abroad and given privileged access to the country’s rulers.
Both Rosindell, who sits on 55 groups, and Pritchard, a member of 50 groups, have accepted trips abroad worth thousands of pounds as members of the parliamentary committees.
This summer Rosindell, who is chairman of the Turks and Caicos islands group, visited the islands in the Caribbean with a member of his staff on an expenses-paid trip. While there he looked at the “social, economic and constitutional problems facing the British overseas territory”.
Rosindell declared in the Commons register that the flights for two people cost £6,000, accommodation for between August 26 and September 1 cost £2,600 and flight upgrades were £5,000.
The islands, known for their beautiful beaches and unspoilt coral reefs, also harbour a reputation as a tax haven.
They are not the only offshore havens in which Rosindell has taken a parliamentary interest. He is vice-chairman of the Belize all-party parliamentary group and vice-chairman of the Cayman Islands group.
He is also vice-chairman of the Channel Islands group, chairman of the Isle of Man group, joint chairman of the Swiss group and secretary of the Virgin Islands group. In addition he is the chairman, treasurer and secretary of the Liechtenstein group.
Rosindell, MP for Romford, has made a number of trips to Gibraltar paid for by the territory’s government and then tabled a series of parliamentary questions about the rock without declaring an interest.
Between them Rosindell and Pritchard have chalked up dozens of positions as office holders of the country committees. Competition for the most glamorous, wealthy and exotic destinations is far fiercer than for more remote locations. The Western Sahara all-party parliamentary group is one of the few committees that neither Rosindell nor Pritchard belong to.
Pritchard, MP for The Wrekin in Shropshire, who is chairman of the Philippines parliamentary group, flew to Manila last year at the expense of the Philippines foreign affairs ministry.
During the visit, which Pritchard says in the register of members’ interests cost between £3,000 and £4,000, he met the president and the foreign secretary, as well as security and defence officials to “discuss counter-terrorism measures”.
In May 2008 Pritchard — who, like Rosindell, is a member of the Oman parliamentary group — took his wife to the country “to meet government ministers and officials and to discuss UK/Omani defence and trade relations”. His flights and accommodation were paid for by the government of Oman.
Kevan Jones, Labour MP for Durham North, said: “There is a value to these groups. People get expertise in a particular country, but these two are taking things to extremes.
“The pair put Alan Whicker to shame in international travel. It makes you wonder how they find time for their constituents.”
Rosindell, who has faithfully declared his trips in the Commons register, said he was a member of the committees because he was “interested in foreign affairs”.
He added: “It means I get information and briefings about that country and I’m interested. I meet politicians from countries from all round the world.”
Pritchard, who has also declared his trips in the register, refused to comment.
Andrew Rosindell, pictured, went on an expenses-paid visit to the Caribbean (Stefano Amantini)
Two enterprising MPs have between them managed to sit on more than 100 committees, guaranteeing lavish overseas junkets and VIP treatment (Times £)
Mark Pritchard, pictured, has already visited the Philippines for work (Simeone Giovanni)Two Tory MPs faced with languishing on the back benches have divided up the world between them to to sit on more than 100 committees that make lavish trips abroad.
They can enjoy luxury travel and exclusive hotels on trips to countries that range from America to Zimbabwe. There they are treated as VIPs and make important contacts. As well as a source of overseas junkets, the groups are seen in Westminster as a potential route into employment for politicians seeking posts as consultants after leaving parliament.
While most MPs usually join no more than a handful of parliamentary country committees, Andrew Rosindell and Mark Pritchard, both 44, are members of 105 between them.
Members of the all-party parliamentary country groups are often flown first-class and put up in smart hotels by foreign governments. They are wined and dined while abroad and given privileged access to the country’s rulers.
Both Rosindell, who sits on 55 groups, and Pritchard, a member of 50 groups, have accepted trips abroad worth thousands of pounds as members of the parliamentary committees.
This summer Rosindell, who is chairman of the Turks and Caicos islands group, visited the islands in the Caribbean with a member of his staff on an expenses-paid trip. While there he looked at the “social, economic and constitutional problems facing the British overseas territory”.
Rosindell declared in the Commons register that the flights for two people cost £6,000, accommodation for between August 26 and September 1 cost £2,600 and flight upgrades were £5,000.
The islands, known for their beautiful beaches and unspoilt coral reefs, also harbour a reputation as a tax haven.
They are not the only offshore havens in which Rosindell has taken a parliamentary interest. He is vice-chairman of the Belize all-party parliamentary group and vice-chairman of the Cayman Islands group.
He is also vice-chairman of the Channel Islands group, chairman of the Isle of Man group, joint chairman of the Swiss group and secretary of the Virgin Islands group. In addition he is the chairman, treasurer and secretary of the Liechtenstein group.
Rosindell, MP for Romford, has made a number of trips to Gibraltar paid for by the territory’s government and then tabled a series of parliamentary questions about the rock without declaring an interest.
Between them Rosindell and Pritchard have chalked up dozens of positions as office holders of the country committees. Competition for the most glamorous, wealthy and exotic destinations is far fiercer than for more remote locations. The Western Sahara all-party parliamentary group is one of the few committees that neither Rosindell nor Pritchard belong to.
Pritchard, MP for The Wrekin in Shropshire, who is chairman of the Philippines parliamentary group, flew to Manila last year at the expense of the Philippines foreign affairs ministry.
During the visit, which Pritchard says in the register of members’ interests cost between £3,000 and £4,000, he met the president and the foreign secretary, as well as security and defence officials to “discuss counter-terrorism measures”.
In May 2008 Pritchard — who, like Rosindell, is a member of the Oman parliamentary group — took his wife to the country “to meet government ministers and officials and to discuss UK/Omani defence and trade relations”. His flights and accommodation were paid for by the government of Oman.
Kevan Jones, Labour MP for Durham North, said: “There is a value to these groups. People get expertise in a particular country, but these two are taking things to extremes.
“The pair put Alan Whicker to shame in international travel. It makes you wonder how they find time for their constituents.”
Rosindell, who has faithfully declared his trips in the Commons register, said he was a member of the committees because he was “interested in foreign affairs”.
He added: “It means I get information and briefings about that country and I’m interested. I meet politicians from countries from all round the world.”
Pritchard, who has also declared his trips in the register, refused to comment.
Andrew Rosindell, pictured, went on an expenses-paid visit to the Caribbean (Stefano Amantini)
Snow photos
Snow photos
Reflections of snow covered trees are seen in a lake near Sutton Bank, northern England. Picture: REUTERS
A dog runs through snow covered woodland at Sutton Bank, northern England. Picture: REUTERS
Reflections of snow covered trees are seen in a lake near Sutton Bank, northern England. Picture: REUTERSA dog runs through snow covered woodland at Sutton Bank, northern England. Picture: REUTERS
Expenses fiddling Tory MP Julian Lewis in libel bid
Expenses fiddling Tory MP Julian Lewis in libel bid
MP threatens libel action over expenses letter
A Conservative MP has threatened to sue a member of the public who criticised his parliamentary expenses in a letter to a local newspaper.
Mr Lewis featured in The Sunday Telegraph's coverage of the expenses scandal when it emerged he had asked the Commons' authorities if he could claim £5,995 in expenses for a wooden floor at his second home
"Solicitors acting for Julian Lewis, MP for New Forest East, sent a strongly-worded warning to Richard Grant for saying in a published letter that Mr Lewis "got away with it" after claiming expenses which would be "considered unacceptable" by most people".
Julian Lewis is the MP for the Snout in the Trough constituency.
MP threatens libel action over expenses letter
A Conservative MP has threatened to sue a member of the public who criticised his parliamentary expenses in a letter to a local newspaper.
Mr Lewis featured in The Sunday Telegraph's coverage of the expenses scandal when it emerged he had asked the Commons' authorities if he could claim £5,995 in expenses for a wooden floor at his second home"Solicitors acting for Julian Lewis, MP for New Forest East, sent a strongly-worded warning to Richard Grant for saying in a published letter that Mr Lewis "got away with it" after claiming expenses which would be "considered unacceptable" by most people".
Julian Lewis is the MP for the Snout in the Trough constituency.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Animal pictures of the week: 26 November 2010
Animal pictures of the week: 26 November 2010
This may look like a creature from a Harry Potter movie - at first glance it looks like a bull has sprouted wings and is about to lift off. The amusing picture was snapped as the bull was chased by a crane, the tallest flying bird in the world. The sight was caught on camera at Keoladeo National Park, in Rajasthan, India, by photographer Jagdeep Rajput, who said people had compared it to Pegasus, the mythical winged horse.
Picture: Jagdeep Rajput/solentnews.co.uk
A pelican plays with an empty beer bottle, thinking it is a fish. The sight was captured by Mary Trebilco as she holidayed in Batemans Bay in New South Wales, Australia. She said the bird appeared to be fascinated with the bottle's shiny exterior: "I think he was attracted by the shine and colour, although I don't know why because fish don't usually come in bright green. He dropped it from his mouth but managed to pick it up again and seemed content to let it nestle in his bill for a while."
Picture: Mary Trebilco/solentnews.co.uk
In years to come this small kingfisher will no doubt talk wistfully of the "one that got away". For despite its best efforts the greedy bird was unable to snatch the large fish that was lying enticingly in a net....Picture: REX FEATURES
A ring-tailed lemur sits at the table during its Thanksgiving feast at San Francisco Zoo Picture: AP
This may look like a creature from a Harry Potter movie - at first glance it looks like a bull has sprouted wings and is about to lift off. The amusing picture was snapped as the bull was chased by a crane, the tallest flying bird in the world. The sight was caught on camera at Keoladeo National Park, in Rajasthan, India, by photographer Jagdeep Rajput, who said people had compared it to Pegasus, the mythical winged horse.Picture: Jagdeep Rajput/solentnews.co.uk
A pelican plays with an empty beer bottle, thinking it is a fish. The sight was captured by Mary Trebilco as she holidayed in Batemans Bay in New South Wales, Australia. She said the bird appeared to be fascinated with the bottle's shiny exterior: "I think he was attracted by the shine and colour, although I don't know why because fish don't usually come in bright green. He dropped it from his mouth but managed to pick it up again and seemed content to let it nestle in his bill for a while."Picture: Mary Trebilco/solentnews.co.uk
In years to come this small kingfisher will no doubt talk wistfully of the "one that got away". For despite its best efforts the greedy bird was unable to snatch the large fish that was lying enticingly in a net....Picture: REX FEATURESA ring-tailed lemur sits at the table during its Thanksgiving feast at San Francisco Zoo Picture: AP
Today no news just views
Today no news just views
Telegraph readers' photographs of the snow in Britain
Derek Puck sent us this beautiful photo, saying: "The attached photograph was taken from my sitting room window of Dereham Windmill, Norfolk."
Thick frost is seen on the ground in Kemsing, Kent, in this picture sent to us by Telegraph reader Ruth Rogers
Picture: Ruth Rogers
This magnificently moody photo of a snowstorm over Nant Peris in Snowdonia, Wales, was sent to us by Paul Higginson
Comment: This reminds me of Turner's painting of Hannibal crossing the Alps
Telegraph readers' photographs of the snow in Britain
Derek Puck sent us this beautiful photo, saying: "The attached photograph was taken from my sitting room window of Dereham Windmill, Norfolk."Thick frost is seen on the ground in Kemsing, Kent, in this picture sent to us by Telegraph reader Ruth RogersPicture: Ruth Rogers
This magnificently moody photo of a snowstorm over Nant Peris in Snowdonia, Wales, was sent to us by Paul HigginsonComment: This reminds me of Turner's painting of Hannibal crossing the Alps
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Men They Couldn't Hang - Green Fields of France
The Men They Couldn't Hang - Green Fields of France
Media turn Frances Lawrence into a circus performer
Media turn Frances Lawrence into a circus performer
Learco Chindamo
In 1995 Learco Chindamo stabbed headteacher Philip Lawrence to death when he came to the aid of a pupil at the school gates. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and ordered to serve a minimum of 14 years, the tariff for retribution and deterrence, before being released by the Parole Board. Unfortunately for Mr Chindamo his is a high profile case, and now it appears that he has got himself into a spot of bother. The media then approach Philip Lawrence's widow for her reaction to the news, and no surprise that the angry, bitter and twisted woman spits out her venom like the poisonous snake that she is. You can read the bile that she came out with here. If I was to hazard a guess, I suspect that rather than robbing someone at a cashpoint Mr Chindamo merely marched a debtor to collect money to pay a debt...
The Black Widow Spider: Frances Lawrence. The bitch is back looking like she's a witch wearing a halloween mask!
The Daily Malice reports: "Widow Frances Lawrence has had to endure not just the horror of headmaster Philip Lawrence’s death, but distress at the early release of his killer.
Her nightmare was compounded by the fact the foreign-born criminal could not be deported because of his ‘human rights’".
The stupid twunt needs to get it into her head that Learco Chindamo was not released early at all, but was released on time, as it should be, having paid his debt to society for his crime. It is sickening that this woman, who bemoans the loss of her husband's human rights, is hypocritical by wishing that his killer should be deprived of his human rights!
"Mrs Lawrence revealed that she had desperately tried to find out where Chindamo was living after his release.
Her motivation was simply to protect her family by ensuring her children would never have contact with him".
Why doesn't she let the man rest in peace? She is as cranky as James Bulger's mother.
"But the widow says she has been continually snubbed by the authorities and made by the Government to feel a ‘persona non grata’".
I am equally dismissive of her. Legally, her role in the affair ends when Chindamo was sent to prison. Her obsession is akin to stalking.
"Mrs Lawrence said she had been trying for months to speak to a justice minister but was brushed off and told it was not policy to tell victims of the movements of criminals".
Join the club! I have been wanting them to speak to me for years about the Prisoners Votes Case. Under Labour they didn't for fear of what The Sun and Daily Mail might say! The Coalition won't because they claim I ridcule them on my blog! Live with it!
"David Cameron said in 2007 that Chindamo’s case demonstrated that Labour’s Human Rights Act was ‘rotten to the core’ and vowed to scrap it. But, to the anger of many Tory MPs, the Prime Minister’s pledge has been shelved thanks to fierce opposition from the Liberal Democrats".
David Cameron shoves so much coke up his nose he can only talk out of his arse! The HRA does have its faults, that is, it needs strengthening to further protect prisoners who (until they get the vote) are the most vulnerable group in society.
Learco ChindamoIn 1995 Learco Chindamo stabbed headteacher Philip Lawrence to death when he came to the aid of a pupil at the school gates. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and ordered to serve a minimum of 14 years, the tariff for retribution and deterrence, before being released by the Parole Board. Unfortunately for Mr Chindamo his is a high profile case, and now it appears that he has got himself into a spot of bother. The media then approach Philip Lawrence's widow for her reaction to the news, and no surprise that the angry, bitter and twisted woman spits out her venom like the poisonous snake that she is. You can read the bile that she came out with here. If I was to hazard a guess, I suspect that rather than robbing someone at a cashpoint Mr Chindamo merely marched a debtor to collect money to pay a debt...
The Black Widow Spider: Frances Lawrence. The bitch is back looking like she's a witch wearing a halloween mask!The Daily Malice reports: "Widow Frances Lawrence has had to endure not just the horror of headmaster Philip Lawrence’s death, but distress at the early release of his killer.
Her nightmare was compounded by the fact the foreign-born criminal could not be deported because of his ‘human rights’".
The stupid twunt needs to get it into her head that Learco Chindamo was not released early at all, but was released on time, as it should be, having paid his debt to society for his crime. It is sickening that this woman, who bemoans the loss of her husband's human rights, is hypocritical by wishing that his killer should be deprived of his human rights!
"Mrs Lawrence revealed that she had desperately tried to find out where Chindamo was living after his release.
Her motivation was simply to protect her family by ensuring her children would never have contact with him".
Why doesn't she let the man rest in peace? She is as cranky as James Bulger's mother.
"But the widow says she has been continually snubbed by the authorities and made by the Government to feel a ‘persona non grata’".
I am equally dismissive of her. Legally, her role in the affair ends when Chindamo was sent to prison. Her obsession is akin to stalking.
"Mrs Lawrence said she had been trying for months to speak to a justice minister but was brushed off and told it was not policy to tell victims of the movements of criminals".
Join the club! I have been wanting them to speak to me for years about the Prisoners Votes Case. Under Labour they didn't for fear of what The Sun and Daily Mail might say! The Coalition won't because they claim I ridcule them on my blog! Live with it!
"David Cameron said in 2007 that Chindamo’s case demonstrated that Labour’s Human Rights Act was ‘rotten to the core’ and vowed to scrap it. But, to the anger of many Tory MPs, the Prime Minister’s pledge has been shelved thanks to fierce opposition from the Liberal Democrats".
David Cameron shoves so much coke up his nose he can only talk out of his arse! The HRA does have its faults, that is, it needs strengthening to further protect prisoners who (until they get the vote) are the most vulnerable group in society.
Hirst Strongly Resonates in Greens … and in Latvia
Hirst Strongly Resonates in Greens … and in Latvia
November 26, 2010
by Maris Burbergs
In what some have considered a “blunt ultimatum”, the Court has just given the United Kingdom a six-month deadline to introduce legislative proposals to amend its laws banning prisoners from voting. At the basis of the Court’s decision, is the government’s 5-year failure to execute the Grand Chamber judgment in Hirst (No. 2), the case concerning prisoners’ voting rights.
The lengthy delay to implement the Hirst judgment, the Court said this week in Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, has resulted in around 2,500 new applications currently pending before the Court. The Court warned that the number continues to grow with each election that passes noting that there are approximately 70,000 serving prisoners in the UK at any one time, all of whom are potential applicants. So at stake is not only the state’s responsibility under the Convention but also – and more fundamentally – the future effectiveness of the system which the Court rightly views as threatened by the UK government’s continuing non-compliance.
But let’s recapitulate. In 2005, the Court held in Hirst that the UK voting ban applied automatically to all prisoners irrespective of the length of their sentence, the gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances fell outside any acceptable margin of appreciation. Despite repeated calls from the Committee of Ministers, the UK has not amended its electoral law since Hirst. As a result, Mr. Greens and M.T were ineligible to vote in the European Parliament Election of June 2009 and in the UK General Election of May 2010. The Court thus found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 in the case of Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom.
Making use of its pilot judgment procedure, the Court also examined the case from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interest of other potentially affected persons. It observed it was clear that a legislative amendment was needed in order to render the UK electoral law compatible with the Convention but did not consider appropriate to specify what the content of the legislative proposals should be. The Court pointed nonetheless that the lengthy delay has demonstrated the need for a timetable to introduce such proposals.
So now, from the date Greens and M.T. becomes final, the government has six months to introduce legislative proposals to bring the disputed law/s in line with the Convention. The government is furthermore required to enact the relevant legislation within any time frame set by the Committee of Ministers. The examination of all registered applications will be discontinued pending compliance by the UK with the instruction to introduce legislative proposals. In the event of compliance, the Court has proposed to strike out registered applications. If the UK fails to comply, the Court retains the power to put them back on the list.
Completely different news comes however from another Council of Europe Member State – Latvia. Last October, prisoners voted in Parliamentary elections for the very first time. Following Hirst, a complaint from a prisoner was lodged with the Constitutional Court of Latvia in 2008. Referring to the Hirst judgment, the applicant claimed that his human rights protected by the Constitution have been violated due to national laws prohibiting prisoners from voting.
At the time the Constitutional Court received the application, the government had already made a proposal to change the national laws and the proposal had already passed the first screening in Parliament. In its communication to the Constitutional Court, the Parliament explained that the government had made the proposal to amend the laws as a reaction to Hirst. During the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the amendment was passed and entered into force. The Constitutional Court subsequently struck out the application, as the paragraph prohibiting prisoners from voting in elections was completely taken out of the provision.
The statistics show that 3679 out of 4726 prisoners used their newly granted right in the 2010 Parliamentary elections. This is the number of potential applications Latvia has saved the Court from by reacting promptly to the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. Unlike in the United Kingdom, Hirst strongly resonated in Latvia.
By Lourdes Peroni and Maris Burbergs
November 26, 2010
by Maris Burbergs
In what some have considered a “blunt ultimatum”, the Court has just given the United Kingdom a six-month deadline to introduce legislative proposals to amend its laws banning prisoners from voting. At the basis of the Court’s decision, is the government’s 5-year failure to execute the Grand Chamber judgment in Hirst (No. 2), the case concerning prisoners’ voting rights.
The lengthy delay to implement the Hirst judgment, the Court said this week in Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom, has resulted in around 2,500 new applications currently pending before the Court. The Court warned that the number continues to grow with each election that passes noting that there are approximately 70,000 serving prisoners in the UK at any one time, all of whom are potential applicants. So at stake is not only the state’s responsibility under the Convention but also – and more fundamentally – the future effectiveness of the system which the Court rightly views as threatened by the UK government’s continuing non-compliance.
But let’s recapitulate. In 2005, the Court held in Hirst that the UK voting ban applied automatically to all prisoners irrespective of the length of their sentence, the gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances fell outside any acceptable margin of appreciation. Despite repeated calls from the Committee of Ministers, the UK has not amended its electoral law since Hirst. As a result, Mr. Greens and M.T were ineligible to vote in the European Parliament Election of June 2009 and in the UK General Election of May 2010. The Court thus found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 in the case of Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom.
Making use of its pilot judgment procedure, the Court also examined the case from the perspective of the general measures that need to be taken in the interest of other potentially affected persons. It observed it was clear that a legislative amendment was needed in order to render the UK electoral law compatible with the Convention but did not consider appropriate to specify what the content of the legislative proposals should be. The Court pointed nonetheless that the lengthy delay has demonstrated the need for a timetable to introduce such proposals.
So now, from the date Greens and M.T. becomes final, the government has six months to introduce legislative proposals to bring the disputed law/s in line with the Convention. The government is furthermore required to enact the relevant legislation within any time frame set by the Committee of Ministers. The examination of all registered applications will be discontinued pending compliance by the UK with the instruction to introduce legislative proposals. In the event of compliance, the Court has proposed to strike out registered applications. If the UK fails to comply, the Court retains the power to put them back on the list.
Completely different news comes however from another Council of Europe Member State – Latvia. Last October, prisoners voted in Parliamentary elections for the very first time. Following Hirst, a complaint from a prisoner was lodged with the Constitutional Court of Latvia in 2008. Referring to the Hirst judgment, the applicant claimed that his human rights protected by the Constitution have been violated due to national laws prohibiting prisoners from voting.
At the time the Constitutional Court received the application, the government had already made a proposal to change the national laws and the proposal had already passed the first screening in Parliament. In its communication to the Constitutional Court, the Parliament explained that the government had made the proposal to amend the laws as a reaction to Hirst. During the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, the amendment was passed and entered into force. The Constitutional Court subsequently struck out the application, as the paragraph prohibiting prisoners from voting in elections was completely taken out of the provision.
The statistics show that 3679 out of 4726 prisoners used their newly granted right in the 2010 Parliamentary elections. This is the number of potential applications Latvia has saved the Court from by reacting promptly to the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court. Unlike in the United Kingdom, Hirst strongly resonated in Latvia.
By Lourdes Peroni and Maris Burbergs
Bear necessities, Mother Nature’s recipes, come to wolf
Bear necessities, Mother Nature’s recipes, come to wolf
A wolf is pictured grabbing a salmon from icy waters in Alaska after using the same technique as a grizzly bear metres away.
The photograph was taken by Paul Stinsa, a wildlife photographer from Chicago, on an expedition to Katmai National Park. He and a group of wildlife enthusiasts were watching two bears fishing at Brook Falls, but members of the party soon drifted off.
Mr Stinsa said: “Nothing was happening at the falls, and some of the viewers left the platform to head back to camp. This would prove to be a mistake, as the wolf soon came trotting down the riverbank and into the water.
“I stood on the platform, scrambling to set the camera properly to photograph a dark moving subject against a black background on an overcast day. As the wolf neared the base of the falls, it dived headfirst into the pool. In a flurry of splashing water, it pulled its head out of the river with a salmon, desperately flopping, clamped in its jaws.”
Source: The Times (£)
A wolf is pictured grabbing a salmon from icy waters in Alaska after using the same technique as a grizzly bear metres away.
The photograph was taken by Paul Stinsa, a wildlife photographer from Chicago, on an expedition to Katmai National Park. He and a group of wildlife enthusiasts were watching two bears fishing at Brook Falls, but members of the party soon drifted off.
Mr Stinsa said: “Nothing was happening at the falls, and some of the viewers left the platform to head back to camp. This would prove to be a mistake, as the wolf soon came trotting down the riverbank and into the water.
“I stood on the platform, scrambling to set the camera properly to photograph a dark moving subject against a black background on an overcast day. As the wolf neared the base of the falls, it dived headfirst into the pool. In a flurry of splashing water, it pulled its head out of the river with a salmon, desperately flopping, clamped in its jaws.”
Source: The Times (£)
Can blogs create change?
Can blogs create change?
Journalism aside, do blogs make a difference?
Fighting the law…
For a background on this story, check out this film...
Journalism aside, do blogs make a difference?
Fighting the law…
Audio Slideshow: Hirst v. UK from Adam Westbrook on Vimeo.
For a background on this story, check out this film...
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
6% on Death Row in Illinois found innocent!
6% on Death Row in Illinois found innocent!
Wednesday, November 24,2010
A big push to end capital punishment
Death penalty abolitionists say now is the time
By Patrick Yeagle
A group calling for the end of capital punishment in Illinois says it is within “striking distance” of passing its bill in the final days of the legislative session.
The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (ICADP) is pushing a bill that would eliminate capital punishment in Illinois, and the coalition’s leadership says this is the year for repeal.
Speaking during a lobbying day at the Illinois Capitol Nov. 16, ICADP executive director Jeremy Schroeder told reporters that the coalition was lobbying legislators and Gov. Pat Quinn to pass and sign the repeal. Though Schroeder says a specific bill number has not been officially chosen, the legislative language will likely be inserted into an empty “shell” bill before passage.
“We’re within striking distance,” Schroeder says, adding that it’s difficult to tell how many legislators would actually vote for repeal. “This could be a slam dunk, or we could just squeak this through.”
Democratic Rep. Karen Yarbrough of Chicago will sponsor the bill, and she says the coalition has already spoken to every member of the Illinois General Assembly about how they will vote.
“The idea of this didn’t just happen today,” Yarbrough says. “We feel we’re at the tipping point to get this done.”
The coalition is focusing on economics and innocence in their call for abolition, saying the system is too expensive for the state and too likely to execute innocent prisoners. Litigating capital punishment cases cost Illinois $54 million from January 2003 to November 2009. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, 20 death row prisoners have been released after being proven innocent – a rate of six percent and the highest rate of the 36 states with the death penalty. Former Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on the death penalty in 2000, and he commuted 167 death sentences in 2003 shortly before leaving office.
Former Democratic state representative John Dunn of Decatur told reporters that he voted against the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977 and was subsequently reelected eight times, which he says should dispel the myth that legislators who vote against the death penalty will be voted out of office.
“My view then and now is that the death penalty is the premeditated taking of life of another not in war and not in self-defense,” Dunn says. “That’s a pretty fair definition of murder; it’s murder by society.”
A report released on Oct. 28 by the Illinois Capital Punishment Reform Study Commission seems to support the coalition’s reasoning, but declines to call for an end to the death penalty itself. Citing a long list of reforms already instituted in Illinois’ capital punishment system, the report instead identifies further reforms needed, such as funding for state forensic laboratories, electronic recording of interrogations in homicide investigations and an independent panel to oversee in which cases state’s attorneys seek the death penalty.
“After six years of study and analysis, the committee found several issues which still should be addressed in the Illinois capital punishment system,” says CPRSC chair Thomas Sullivan, adding that many of the issues were the same as those identified in 2002 by a similar committee under George Ryan.
But members of the anti-death penalty group made clear they feel the system cannot be fixed.
“We have spent millions of dollars to reform a system that cannot be reformed,” says Randy Steidl, who was released from death row in 2004 after serving 12 years for a pair of murders he did not commit. “After adopting 35 revisions in the death penalty codes, they still say they cannot guarantee that an innocent person would not be executed, so how can you possibly justify spending millions of dollars on a system that is so flawed?”
The Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty’s website is icadp.org. Read the full reform study at tinyurl.com/deathreform.
Contact Patrick Yeagle at pyeagle@illinoistimes.com.
Wednesday, November 24,2010
A big push to end capital punishment
Death penalty abolitionists say now is the time
By Patrick Yeagle
A group calling for the end of capital punishment in Illinois says it is within “striking distance” of passing its bill in the final days of the legislative session.
The Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (ICADP) is pushing a bill that would eliminate capital punishment in Illinois, and the coalition’s leadership says this is the year for repeal.
Speaking during a lobbying day at the Illinois Capitol Nov. 16, ICADP executive director Jeremy Schroeder told reporters that the coalition was lobbying legislators and Gov. Pat Quinn to pass and sign the repeal. Though Schroeder says a specific bill number has not been officially chosen, the legislative language will likely be inserted into an empty “shell” bill before passage.
“We’re within striking distance,” Schroeder says, adding that it’s difficult to tell how many legislators would actually vote for repeal. “This could be a slam dunk, or we could just squeak this through.”
Democratic Rep. Karen Yarbrough of Chicago will sponsor the bill, and she says the coalition has already spoken to every member of the Illinois General Assembly about how they will vote.
“The idea of this didn’t just happen today,” Yarbrough says. “We feel we’re at the tipping point to get this done.”
The coalition is focusing on economics and innocence in their call for abolition, saying the system is too expensive for the state and too likely to execute innocent prisoners. Litigating capital punishment cases cost Illinois $54 million from January 2003 to November 2009. Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977, 20 death row prisoners have been released after being proven innocent – a rate of six percent and the highest rate of the 36 states with the death penalty. Former Gov. George H. Ryan placed a moratorium on the death penalty in 2000, and he commuted 167 death sentences in 2003 shortly before leaving office.
Former Democratic state representative John Dunn of Decatur told reporters that he voted against the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977 and was subsequently reelected eight times, which he says should dispel the myth that legislators who vote against the death penalty will be voted out of office.
“My view then and now is that the death penalty is the premeditated taking of life of another not in war and not in self-defense,” Dunn says. “That’s a pretty fair definition of murder; it’s murder by society.”
A report released on Oct. 28 by the Illinois Capital Punishment Reform Study Commission seems to support the coalition’s reasoning, but declines to call for an end to the death penalty itself. Citing a long list of reforms already instituted in Illinois’ capital punishment system, the report instead identifies further reforms needed, such as funding for state forensic laboratories, electronic recording of interrogations in homicide investigations and an independent panel to oversee in which cases state’s attorneys seek the death penalty.
“After six years of study and analysis, the committee found several issues which still should be addressed in the Illinois capital punishment system,” says CPRSC chair Thomas Sullivan, adding that many of the issues were the same as those identified in 2002 by a similar committee under George Ryan.
But members of the anti-death penalty group made clear they feel the system cannot be fixed.
“We have spent millions of dollars to reform a system that cannot be reformed,” says Randy Steidl, who was released from death row in 2004 after serving 12 years for a pair of murders he did not commit. “After adopting 35 revisions in the death penalty codes, they still say they cannot guarantee that an innocent person would not be executed, so how can you possibly justify spending millions of dollars on a system that is so flawed?”
The Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty’s website is icadp.org. Read the full reform study at tinyurl.com/deathreform.
Contact Patrick Yeagle at pyeagle@illinoistimes.com.
Rapist wins prisoners the right to vote by 2011: EU human rights court sets six month deadline for Britain
Rapist wins prisoners the right to vote by 2011: EU human rights court sets six month deadline for Britain
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:59 AM on 24th November 2010
Ken Clarke: Voting might 'widen the mind' of prisoners
Rapist Robert Greens claimed that barring him from voting infringed his human rights
Judges have given David Cameron six months to honour a pledge to give prisoners the vote after a jailed rapist successfully claimed his human rights had been infringed.
Robert Greens, 32, complained to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that banning British inmates from taking part in elections is illegal.
The Government was ordered to pay Greens costs of £4,230 and to give all convicts the vote by May 2011.
The Prime Minister has no choice but to comply with the European directive or face compensation payouts to 2,500 prisoners who have already lodged legal claims in Strasbourg.
Greens was jailed for ten years in 2006 for raping a Dutch student near Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland. He tried to blame the assault on his identical twin brother.
Five years ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain's total ban on votes for prisoners was illegal.
But the Labour Government left it in place, angering civil liberties groups and triggering a warning earlier this year from human rights watchdog the Council of Europe.
Then three weeks ago Minister for Political and Constitutional reform Mark Harper told the Commons that the coalition reluctantly accepted that Britain had a legal obligation to fall in line, but had not yet decided which inmates it would affect.
He said: 'I think every member in the House is exasperated about this but we have no choice about complying with the law.'
But he said the Government had to comply - or face possible compensation claims running into millions in a flood of new human rights claims by inmates.
Cheers!: Axe killerJohn Hirst enjoys a glass of Champagne and a spliff after securing a landmark European ruling giving prisoners the vote
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke said yesterday that voting might 'widen the mind' of prisoners and prepare them for the obligations of citizenship.
The original case five years ago was a landmark victory for convicted axe killer John Hirst from Hull.
European courts earlier this month supported Hirst’s claim that Britain’s ban on convicted prisoners voting was a breach of human rights law.
Obligations of citizenship: Ken Clarke, pictured in Downing Street yesterday, said voting might 'widen the mind' of prisoners
Mr Cameron claimed to be ‘angry and exasperated’ at having to take the decision, despite failing to fight to keep the 140-year-old ban in place.
Legal experts say even the country’s most reviled and dangerous inmates will now get the vote – including child-killers Ian Huntley, Rose West and Roy Whiting. It could see candidates potentially visiting inmates in prison to canvass.
In yesterday's case, Greens and another prisoner named only as M.T. - both serving time at Peterhead prison and due to be released this year - were each awarded £4,230.
The judgment said that, as a result of the UK's failure to act on the ruling five years ago, the two prisoners remained unable to vote, specifically in the June 2009 European Parliament elections and this May's general election which put Mr Cameron into power.
The judgment noted 'that the new UK Government was 'actively considering the best way of implementing the judgment', but the judges said it was 'far from apparent' that an 'appropriate solution' would be in place in time for the Scottish elections, scheduled for May 2011 - triggering a possible new wave of applications to the Court.
The Scottish government is opposed to giving prisoners the right to vote, but although justice policy is devolved to Scotland, decisions on voting eligibility remain a 'reserved matter' for the UK government, and any rule changes introduced by the coalition would apply.
Today the judges decided not specify the detail of future UK law on prisoner voting rights, but said the lengthy delay so far in changing the current rules warranted the imposition of a deadline for action.
No choice: The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that Britain's total ban on votes for prisoners was illegal
It was set at six months from the date today's verdict becomes 'final', which is in three months.
That amounts to nine months in all to draw up proposals, 'with the enactment of an electoral law meeting the Court's requirements to be delivered according to any time-scale determined by the (Human Rights) Committee of Ministers'.
About 40 per cent of the countries in the Council of Europe - which include all 27 EU member states - have no restrictions on prisoners voting. Others only ban some sentenced prisoners from voting. In France and Germany, courts have the power to impose loss of voting rights as an additional punishment.
The UK is among a few European countries including Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary and Romania, which automatically remove voting rights from sentenced prisoners, although UK remand prisoners still have the vote.
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:59 AM on 24th November 2010
Ken Clarke: Voting might 'widen the mind' of prisoners
Rapist Robert Greens claimed that barring him from voting infringed his human rightsJudges have given David Cameron six months to honour a pledge to give prisoners the vote after a jailed rapist successfully claimed his human rights had been infringed.
Robert Greens, 32, complained to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that banning British inmates from taking part in elections is illegal.
The Government was ordered to pay Greens costs of £4,230 and to give all convicts the vote by May 2011.
The Prime Minister has no choice but to comply with the European directive or face compensation payouts to 2,500 prisoners who have already lodged legal claims in Strasbourg.
Greens was jailed for ten years in 2006 for raping a Dutch student near Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland. He tried to blame the assault on his identical twin brother.
Five years ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain's total ban on votes for prisoners was illegal.
But the Labour Government left it in place, angering civil liberties groups and triggering a warning earlier this year from human rights watchdog the Council of Europe.
Then three weeks ago Minister for Political and Constitutional reform Mark Harper told the Commons that the coalition reluctantly accepted that Britain had a legal obligation to fall in line, but had not yet decided which inmates it would affect.
He said: 'I think every member in the House is exasperated about this but we have no choice about complying with the law.'
But he said the Government had to comply - or face possible compensation claims running into millions in a flood of new human rights claims by inmates.
Cheers!: Axe killerJohn Hirst enjoys a glass of Champagne and a spliff after securing a landmark European ruling giving prisoners the voteJustice Secretary Ken Clarke said yesterday that voting might 'widen the mind' of prisoners and prepare them for the obligations of citizenship.
The original case five years ago was a landmark victory for convicted axe killer John Hirst from Hull.
European courts earlier this month supported Hirst’s claim that Britain’s ban on convicted prisoners voting was a breach of human rights law.
Obligations of citizenship: Ken Clarke, pictured in Downing Street yesterday, said voting might 'widen the mind' of prisonersMr Cameron claimed to be ‘angry and exasperated’ at having to take the decision, despite failing to fight to keep the 140-year-old ban in place.
Legal experts say even the country’s most reviled and dangerous inmates will now get the vote – including child-killers Ian Huntley, Rose West and Roy Whiting. It could see candidates potentially visiting inmates in prison to canvass.
In yesterday's case, Greens and another prisoner named only as M.T. - both serving time at Peterhead prison and due to be released this year - were each awarded £4,230.
The judgment said that, as a result of the UK's failure to act on the ruling five years ago, the two prisoners remained unable to vote, specifically in the June 2009 European Parliament elections and this May's general election which put Mr Cameron into power.
The judgment noted 'that the new UK Government was 'actively considering the best way of implementing the judgment', but the judges said it was 'far from apparent' that an 'appropriate solution' would be in place in time for the Scottish elections, scheduled for May 2011 - triggering a possible new wave of applications to the Court.
The Scottish government is opposed to giving prisoners the right to vote, but although justice policy is devolved to Scotland, decisions on voting eligibility remain a 'reserved matter' for the UK government, and any rule changes introduced by the coalition would apply.
Today the judges decided not specify the detail of future UK law on prisoner voting rights, but said the lengthy delay so far in changing the current rules warranted the imposition of a deadline for action.
No choice: The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that Britain's total ban on votes for prisoners was illegalIt was set at six months from the date today's verdict becomes 'final', which is in three months.
That amounts to nine months in all to draw up proposals, 'with the enactment of an electoral law meeting the Court's requirements to be delivered according to any time-scale determined by the (Human Rights) Committee of Ministers'.
About 40 per cent of the countries in the Council of Europe - which include all 27 EU member states - have no restrictions on prisoners voting. Others only ban some sentenced prisoners from voting. In France and Germany, courts have the power to impose loss of voting rights as an additional punishment.
The UK is among a few European countries including Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary and Romania, which automatically remove voting rights from sentenced prisoners, although UK remand prisoners still have the vote.
David Ruffley suggests withdrawing from the ECHR over votes for prisoners
David Ruffley suggests withdrawing from the ECHR over votes for prisoners
By Jonathan Isaby
During Justice Questions yesterday, the issue of votes for prisoners was raised on the back of the recent judgment from the European Court of Human Rights.
Tory MP David Ruffley proposed a radical solution for dealing with the problem:
"The Hirst judgment says that article 3 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights obliges this House to give some prisoners the vote; as we have heard, it also gives rise to financial compensation to some prisoners who have been denied that right. Although I sympathise with my right hon. and learned Friend, does he accept that there is an intellectual case for, in time, bringing powers back to Westminster in this area by repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdrawing from the European convention of human rights?"
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was not sympathetic to this course of action:
"There has been another British case today, which has clarified the situation slightly and has underlined the fact that the Government have discretion on how to comply with their obligations. In due course, obviously, we shall establish a commission on how best to give effect to our human rights obligations in this country, but that will not happen until at least next year. The coalition Government do not intend to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, which was imposed by the victorious British on the rest of Europe after the war in order to establish British values across the countries that were recovering from fascism and was drafted largely by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who put what he thought were the best principles of British justice into it."
South Swindon MP Robert Buckland also probed the Justice Secretary further on how the Government intends responding to the judgement:
"In considering the Government’s policy on this thorny issue, will the Secretary of State, if he has to abide by the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, restrict the right to vote to those prisoners at the lowest level of seriousness — for example, those dealt with by the magistrates courts for summary offences only?"
Ken Clarke replied:
"This applies only to prisoners — obviously, people who have not been in prison do not lose their vote at all. We have to comply with the judgment of the Court. The problem is that this extremely annoying issue will become even more annoying to the public and everyone else if we simply do nothing and wait until some huge financial judgment is made against the taxpayer, which will turn the present public anger into fury. That is why we are going to bring forward considered proposals. At the moment, someone not sent to prison does not lose their vote — irrespective of what other punishment they receive in their summary trial."
By Jonathan Isaby
During Justice Questions yesterday, the issue of votes for prisoners was raised on the back of the recent judgment from the European Court of Human Rights.
Tory MP David Ruffley proposed a radical solution for dealing with the problem:
"The Hirst judgment says that article 3 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights obliges this House to give some prisoners the vote; as we have heard, it also gives rise to financial compensation to some prisoners who have been denied that right. Although I sympathise with my right hon. and learned Friend, does he accept that there is an intellectual case for, in time, bringing powers back to Westminster in this area by repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 and withdrawing from the European convention of human rights?"
Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was not sympathetic to this course of action:
"There has been another British case today, which has clarified the situation slightly and has underlined the fact that the Government have discretion on how to comply with their obligations. In due course, obviously, we shall establish a commission on how best to give effect to our human rights obligations in this country, but that will not happen until at least next year. The coalition Government do not intend to withdraw from the European convention on human rights, which was imposed by the victorious British on the rest of Europe after the war in order to establish British values across the countries that were recovering from fascism and was drafted largely by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, who put what he thought were the best principles of British justice into it."
South Swindon MP Robert Buckland also probed the Justice Secretary further on how the Government intends responding to the judgement:
"In considering the Government’s policy on this thorny issue, will the Secretary of State, if he has to abide by the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, restrict the right to vote to those prisoners at the lowest level of seriousness — for example, those dealt with by the magistrates courts for summary offences only?"
Ken Clarke replied:
"This applies only to prisoners — obviously, people who have not been in prison do not lose their vote at all. We have to comply with the judgment of the Court. The problem is that this extremely annoying issue will become even more annoying to the public and everyone else if we simply do nothing and wait until some huge financial judgment is made against the taxpayer, which will turn the present public anger into fury. That is why we are going to bring forward considered proposals. At the moment, someone not sent to prison does not lose their vote — irrespective of what other punishment they receive in their summary trial."
CONVICTS ‘MUST GET THE VOTE’
CONVICTS ‘MUST GET THE VOTE’
Wednesday November 24,2010
By Martyn Brown
EUROPEAN judges last night ordered Britain to change the law to allow prisoners the right to vote.
They gave the Government just six months to comply.
The European Court of Human Rights said the UK’s failure to end its total ban had violated international law.
PM David Cameron has said the thought of giving prisoners the vote makes him “physically ill” but that the Government has no choice.
In the Commons, Labour’s Steve McCabe said the move was “simply unacceptable” and a concession to the Liberal Democrats.
But Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said giving prisoners the vote will help them prepare for life outside jail.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled against Britain’s blanket ban in 2004 and governments have since been considering how to comply.
Reports suggest prisoners with long sentences could still be excluded or judges could withhold the right to vote at the time of sentencing.
Wednesday November 24,2010
By Martyn Brown
EUROPEAN judges last night ordered Britain to change the law to allow prisoners the right to vote.
They gave the Government just six months to comply.
The European Court of Human Rights said the UK’s failure to end its total ban had violated international law.
PM David Cameron has said the thought of giving prisoners the vote makes him “physically ill” but that the Government has no choice.
In the Commons, Labour’s Steve McCabe said the move was “simply unacceptable” and a concession to the Liberal Democrats.
But Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke said giving prisoners the vote will help them prepare for life outside jail.
The European Court of Human Rights ruled against Britain’s blanket ban in 2004 and governments have since been considering how to comply.
Reports suggest prisoners with long sentences could still be excluded or judges could withhold the right to vote at the time of sentencing.
Capital punishment for corruption: How desirable?
Capital punishment for corruption: How desirable?
Written by Bukunmi Ogunsola
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Capital punishment or death penalty is as old as society itself. It involves beheading, stoning, crucifixion, drowning or the burying alive of criminal offenders. In modern times, it takes the form of shooting in private or public glare, electrocution, hanging, use of poison gas, injection of lethal substances, etc.
In the olden days and even presently in some countries, capital punishment was/is not applied solely for the most serious crimes.
Death was/is the repercussion for a variety of minor offences. For instance, Libya considers the importation of alcohol and trading in foreign currencies as capital crimes.
The supporters of capital punishment say that it will ensure the safety of other citizens and that “the ultimate penalty of death is necessary for the punishment of terrible people who commit terrible crimes because it provides the most complete retribution and condemnation.” They also believe that it could serve as an effective deterrent to the potential criminals because death is feared than the restriction of liberty.
Many countries regularly carry out capital punishment of offenders.
In America, there is a complex fusion of a legal system that authorises execution of criminal offenders and that which is characterised by the utmost respect for individual rights.
In Asian countries, particularly China, South Korea and Islamic nations, capital punishment is a routine, while the majority of countries in Africa practice capital punishment.
Before the World War II, all the major countries in Western Europe carried out this form of punishment.
According to the Amnesty International, a total of 1,813 prisoners were executed in 31 countries in 1999 while China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States carried out 85 per cent of all these killings.
Over the years, however, there have been debates over the desirability or otherwise of this form of punishment, with opponents describing it as “brutal and dehumanising.”
Opponents argue that life imprisonment could serve as an effective punishment and detterent to others and that it has been proved that capital punishment has no direct correlation with the elimination of crime.
The issue had become so controversial that by the 1990s, the nations of the world had become almost equally divided with respect to the death penalty issue.
Shortly after, over 70 countries abolished capital punishment while another 13 countries applied the death penalty only for exceptional crimes like crimes under military law and crimes committed in exceptional circumstances, such as during wartime.
Presently, however, of all developed nations, only the US and Japan still retain the death penalty, while the practice is prevalent in underdeveloped nations.
In Nigeria, this form of punishment appears to have been abolished with the exit of military governance.
But the issue has, again, assumed the front burner of national disourse in view of the monster called corruption that is gradually but steadily eating away the fabric of the nation.
In Nigeria, those who aspire to run the machinery of government do so essentially for the purpose of self-aggrandisemest and not because they want to serve the people or the nation.
Politicians and public office holders have “cornered” the common wealth for themselves and their generations yet unborn, leaving the over 150 million populace to wallow in abject and debilitating poverty.
The ultimate effect of this is that Nigerians are dying because they cannot eat well and cannot afford good health.They are exposed to all sorts of waterborne and airborne diseases because there is no good housing and potable water. They have become generally disenchanted, disillusioned and frustrated, and may have seen no reason to continue to live, all because some selfish public officials have stolen the wealth of their nation.
And despite all efforts by certain governments to eliminate or, at least, eradicate corruption among public office holders, it appears to be gaining ground.
The question then arises, if a few people have chosen to “sentence the people to death” by their greed and avarice, why should they themselves be spared? Should corrupt public office holders be subjected to capital punishment?This was the poser by the Nigerian Tribune to a cross section of Nigerians.
Mr J.Ebri said he does not support death penalty for corrupt politicians. He argued that corrupt enrichment is disobedience to civil law and not a capital crime. Capital punishment, he observed, is for capital crime like murder.
He reiterated:“Check all the statute books. Capital punishment is only meant for capital crime. I suggest that corrupt politicians should be clamped into jail. And by the time they come out, they would be too old to contest another election.
“I learnt that one former governor who was removed by the court after spendig three years in the saddle as governor says he will no longer contest the governorship race. My question is, why would he want to contest after he had stolen enough money. This kind of people should be clamped into jail along with all his cohorts” Ebri opined.
Mr Niyi Ogunjemilua also opposed capital punishment as a form of punishment for corrupt officials. He suggested that instead, such people should be made to forfeit all that they have - money, assets, etc. while their names should also be written in the nation’s black book.
Said he “Capital punishment is not the solution. Government should take over everything that belongs to the corrupt politician -- whether acquired legitimately or not. His name and those of his children and the extended family should also be written in the nation’s black book with the implication that none of them would be allowed to vote or be voted for. They would also be denied appointment whether in the public or private sector for the rest of their lives. I believe if this is done, the culprit’s children would by themselves kill their father.”
Ogunjemilua further argued that capital punishment has not served as an effective deterrent to capital crimes adding, “It is no longer news that cases of pick pocket are usually recorded in places where mass public executions for theft and other crimes are carried out. So, capital punishment is not the appropriate way of dealing with corrupt politicians.”
Mrs R. Sanni is, however, of a different opinion.“I support capital punishment. This is the only way to prevent the politicians from sentencing other Nigerians to death by taking away what belongs to all of us. Ghana did it and today they are the better for it. I believe if there’s anything more than capital punishment, these politicians deserve it.
“Nigerian politicians steal our money and invest same in foreign countries by building business empires and when they eventually die, these empires are taken over by the host countries, while millions of Nigerian graduates roam about the streets begging for alms or taking to armed robbery because they cannot find jobs to do. When these graduate armed robbers kill fellow citizens while trying to rob them, who bears the blame? Is it not the politicians? Corrupt politicians do not deserve our mercy”
“We would be jumping the gun if we advocate capital punishment. We are deviating from the real issue and we might not win at the end”Charles Oni reasoned adding that, “What we should be talking about is appropriate punishment. The punishment should tally with the offence committed.”
Akinloye Babatunde opined that capital punishment is a sin. “There are other ways of handling the issue of corruption among public office holders” , he said highlighting such alternative ways as: Freezing of account, impounding properties and placing a ban that would prevent such persons and their families from holding public offices in future.
Inasmuch as we cannot give life, according to Mr. Success, we have no justification to take life. He noted that apart from the punishment meted out to criminals, there’s also the law of karma which would most certainly catch up with them.
Adebayo Lana said:” I am a Christian and there are some crimes for which the Bible prescribes capital punishment. No matter how wise human laws pretend to be, they cannot be wiser than the Bible. Corruption is worst than armed robbery and anybody found guilty must be hanged. Corruption mortgages the future of our children. Some people blame God for their poor material conditions instead of seeing it as a result of the greed of certain people. If public office holders are found guilty of corruption, they should be hanged or made to face firing squad. However, government should be generous enough to make them choose either to die by hanging or firing squad. Corruption is responsible for our poor social infrastructure and national economic stagnation.Nigeria is 50 years yet, it has nothing to show for it.”
“Capital punishment might be considered extreme because in the real sense of it, the people who are supposed to make the law are the law breakers rather, I would support an independent body like Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) who would prosecute offenders and freeze their assets thereby making them irrelevant to the society”, opined Robinson Osagie.
Speaking on the issue, a sociologist, Dr Akeem Akinwale, of the Sociology Department of the University of Ibadan averred that capital punishment negates the principal purpose of punishment which is basically about reforming the criminal. He argued that a criminal after undergoing rehabilitation has the chance of contrubuting positively to the development of the society while a total condemnation will not give such a person the opportunity to do so.
The question was asked: Can someone who is advanced in age be made to change his ways? The don replied:”Of couse yes. Human beings learn until death. There is no end to learning. Human beings are capable of change.Even professors still learn. All humans are capable of change”.
Dr Akinwale disclosed that it has been proved that capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent to crime but rather it leads to increased criminality.
The don however, lamented the dehumanising state of our prisons, where reformation of criminals are supposed to take place but of which the reverse is the case. “Our prisons should be reformative.Prison officials should be able to work on the psyche of criminals to make them changed persons. But the prison condition is so dehumanising such that criminals leave the place worse than they went in”. the don surmised and blamed the nation’s faulty social structure for this shortcoming.
Additional report by Bukunmi Ogunsola.
Written by Bukunmi Ogunsola
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Capital punishment or death penalty is as old as society itself. It involves beheading, stoning, crucifixion, drowning or the burying alive of criminal offenders. In modern times, it takes the form of shooting in private or public glare, electrocution, hanging, use of poison gas, injection of lethal substances, etc.
In the olden days and even presently in some countries, capital punishment was/is not applied solely for the most serious crimes.
Death was/is the repercussion for a variety of minor offences. For instance, Libya considers the importation of alcohol and trading in foreign currencies as capital crimes.
The supporters of capital punishment say that it will ensure the safety of other citizens and that “the ultimate penalty of death is necessary for the punishment of terrible people who commit terrible crimes because it provides the most complete retribution and condemnation.” They also believe that it could serve as an effective deterrent to the potential criminals because death is feared than the restriction of liberty.
Many countries regularly carry out capital punishment of offenders.
In America, there is a complex fusion of a legal system that authorises execution of criminal offenders and that which is characterised by the utmost respect for individual rights.
In Asian countries, particularly China, South Korea and Islamic nations, capital punishment is a routine, while the majority of countries in Africa practice capital punishment.
Before the World War II, all the major countries in Western Europe carried out this form of punishment.
According to the Amnesty International, a total of 1,813 prisoners were executed in 31 countries in 1999 while China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the United States carried out 85 per cent of all these killings.
Over the years, however, there have been debates over the desirability or otherwise of this form of punishment, with opponents describing it as “brutal and dehumanising.”
Opponents argue that life imprisonment could serve as an effective punishment and detterent to others and that it has been proved that capital punishment has no direct correlation with the elimination of crime.
The issue had become so controversial that by the 1990s, the nations of the world had become almost equally divided with respect to the death penalty issue.
Shortly after, over 70 countries abolished capital punishment while another 13 countries applied the death penalty only for exceptional crimes like crimes under military law and crimes committed in exceptional circumstances, such as during wartime.
Presently, however, of all developed nations, only the US and Japan still retain the death penalty, while the practice is prevalent in underdeveloped nations.
In Nigeria, this form of punishment appears to have been abolished with the exit of military governance.
But the issue has, again, assumed the front burner of national disourse in view of the monster called corruption that is gradually but steadily eating away the fabric of the nation.
In Nigeria, those who aspire to run the machinery of government do so essentially for the purpose of self-aggrandisemest and not because they want to serve the people or the nation.
Politicians and public office holders have “cornered” the common wealth for themselves and their generations yet unborn, leaving the over 150 million populace to wallow in abject and debilitating poverty.
The ultimate effect of this is that Nigerians are dying because they cannot eat well and cannot afford good health.They are exposed to all sorts of waterborne and airborne diseases because there is no good housing and potable water. They have become generally disenchanted, disillusioned and frustrated, and may have seen no reason to continue to live, all because some selfish public officials have stolen the wealth of their nation.
And despite all efforts by certain governments to eliminate or, at least, eradicate corruption among public office holders, it appears to be gaining ground.
The question then arises, if a few people have chosen to “sentence the people to death” by their greed and avarice, why should they themselves be spared? Should corrupt public office holders be subjected to capital punishment?This was the poser by the Nigerian Tribune to a cross section of Nigerians.
Mr J.Ebri said he does not support death penalty for corrupt politicians. He argued that corrupt enrichment is disobedience to civil law and not a capital crime. Capital punishment, he observed, is for capital crime like murder.
He reiterated:“Check all the statute books. Capital punishment is only meant for capital crime. I suggest that corrupt politicians should be clamped into jail. And by the time they come out, they would be too old to contest another election.
“I learnt that one former governor who was removed by the court after spendig three years in the saddle as governor says he will no longer contest the governorship race. My question is, why would he want to contest after he had stolen enough money. This kind of people should be clamped into jail along with all his cohorts” Ebri opined.
Mr Niyi Ogunjemilua also opposed capital punishment as a form of punishment for corrupt officials. He suggested that instead, such people should be made to forfeit all that they have - money, assets, etc. while their names should also be written in the nation’s black book.
Said he “Capital punishment is not the solution. Government should take over everything that belongs to the corrupt politician -- whether acquired legitimately or not. His name and those of his children and the extended family should also be written in the nation’s black book with the implication that none of them would be allowed to vote or be voted for. They would also be denied appointment whether in the public or private sector for the rest of their lives. I believe if this is done, the culprit’s children would by themselves kill their father.”
Ogunjemilua further argued that capital punishment has not served as an effective deterrent to capital crimes adding, “It is no longer news that cases of pick pocket are usually recorded in places where mass public executions for theft and other crimes are carried out. So, capital punishment is not the appropriate way of dealing with corrupt politicians.”
Mrs R. Sanni is, however, of a different opinion.“I support capital punishment. This is the only way to prevent the politicians from sentencing other Nigerians to death by taking away what belongs to all of us. Ghana did it and today they are the better for it. I believe if there’s anything more than capital punishment, these politicians deserve it.
“Nigerian politicians steal our money and invest same in foreign countries by building business empires and when they eventually die, these empires are taken over by the host countries, while millions of Nigerian graduates roam about the streets begging for alms or taking to armed robbery because they cannot find jobs to do. When these graduate armed robbers kill fellow citizens while trying to rob them, who bears the blame? Is it not the politicians? Corrupt politicians do not deserve our mercy”
“We would be jumping the gun if we advocate capital punishment. We are deviating from the real issue and we might not win at the end”Charles Oni reasoned adding that, “What we should be talking about is appropriate punishment. The punishment should tally with the offence committed.”
Akinloye Babatunde opined that capital punishment is a sin. “There are other ways of handling the issue of corruption among public office holders” , he said highlighting such alternative ways as: Freezing of account, impounding properties and placing a ban that would prevent such persons and their families from holding public offices in future.
Inasmuch as we cannot give life, according to Mr. Success, we have no justification to take life. He noted that apart from the punishment meted out to criminals, there’s also the law of karma which would most certainly catch up with them.
Adebayo Lana said:” I am a Christian and there are some crimes for which the Bible prescribes capital punishment. No matter how wise human laws pretend to be, they cannot be wiser than the Bible. Corruption is worst than armed robbery and anybody found guilty must be hanged. Corruption mortgages the future of our children. Some people blame God for their poor material conditions instead of seeing it as a result of the greed of certain people. If public office holders are found guilty of corruption, they should be hanged or made to face firing squad. However, government should be generous enough to make them choose either to die by hanging or firing squad. Corruption is responsible for our poor social infrastructure and national economic stagnation.Nigeria is 50 years yet, it has nothing to show for it.”
“Capital punishment might be considered extreme because in the real sense of it, the people who are supposed to make the law are the law breakers rather, I would support an independent body like Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) who would prosecute offenders and freeze their assets thereby making them irrelevant to the society”, opined Robinson Osagie.
Speaking on the issue, a sociologist, Dr Akeem Akinwale, of the Sociology Department of the University of Ibadan averred that capital punishment negates the principal purpose of punishment which is basically about reforming the criminal. He argued that a criminal after undergoing rehabilitation has the chance of contrubuting positively to the development of the society while a total condemnation will not give such a person the opportunity to do so.
The question was asked: Can someone who is advanced in age be made to change his ways? The don replied:”Of couse yes. Human beings learn until death. There is no end to learning. Human beings are capable of change.Even professors still learn. All humans are capable of change”.
Dr Akinwale disclosed that it has been proved that capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent to crime but rather it leads to increased criminality.
The don however, lamented the dehumanising state of our prisons, where reformation of criminals are supposed to take place but of which the reverse is the case. “Our prisons should be reformative.Prison officials should be able to work on the psyche of criminals to make them changed persons. But the prison condition is so dehumanising such that criminals leave the place worse than they went in”. the don surmised and blamed the nation’s faulty social structure for this shortcoming.
Additional report by Bukunmi Ogunsola.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Time Limit Imposed on United Kingdom Government to Introduce Legislation Giving Convicted Prisoners the Vote
Time Limit Imposed on United Kingdom Government to Introduce Legislation Giving Convicted Prisoners the Vote
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 60041/08 & 60054/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
A violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights and no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
The case concerns the continued failure to amend the legislation imposing a blanket ban on voting in national and European elections for convicted prisoners in detention in the United Kingdom.
The Court found that the violation in today’s judgment was due to the United Kingdom’s failure to execute the Court’s Grand Chamber judgment in Hirst v. the United Kingdom No. 2 (no. 74025/01), delivered on 6 October 2005, in which it had also found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
Applying its pilot judgment procedure, the Court has given the United Kingdom Government six months from the date when Greens and M.T. becomes final to introduce legislative proposals to bring the disputed law/s in line with the Convention. The Government is further required to enact the relevant legislation within any time frame decided by the Committee of Ministers, the executive arm of the Council of Europe, which supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.
The Court has also decided that it will not examine any comparable cases pending new legislation and proposes to strike out all such registered cases once legislation has been introduced.
Principal facts
The applicants are two British nationals, Robert Greens and M.T., who were both serving a prison sentence at HM Prison Peterhead at the time their applications were lodged with the Court. Mr Greens was eligible for release on parole from 29 May 2010, but it is not known whether he has been released. M.T. is scheduled to be released in November 2010.
On 23 June 2008 the applicants posted voter registration forms to the Electoral Registration Officer (“ERO”) for Grampian, using HM Prison Peterhead as their address.
They argued that, following the Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) judgment (among other things), the ERO was obliged to add their names to the electoral register.
On 12 August 2008, the ERO refused the applicants’ registration applications on the basis of their status as convicted prisoners in detention. Their appeals were unsuccessful.
Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 imposes a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners in detention irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances. The legislation has not been amended since Hirst. As a result, the applicants were ineligible to vote in the United Kingdom General Election on 6 May 2010.
The blanket restriction introduced by section 3 of the 1983 Act was extended to elections to the European Parliament by section 8 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. The applicants were therefore also ineligible to vote in the elections to the European Parliament on 4 June 2009.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
The applicants complained that the refusal to enrol them on the electoral register for domestic and European elections was in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. They also complained that they would potentially be banned from voting in the elections to the Scottish Parliament in May 2011. They further relied on Article 13.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 November 2008.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:
Lech Garlicki (Poland), President,
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),
Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),
Ledi Bianku (Albania),
Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova),
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano (Malta), Judges,
and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to vote)
The Court noted that the applicants had been prevented from voting in the June 2009 European elections and the May 2010 general election as a result of their status as convicted prisoners in detention. However, both men became eligible for/were scheduled for release well before the elections to the Scottish Parliament on 5 May 2011. Accordingly, the Court only examined their complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in relation to the European and general elections.
Section 3 of the 1983 Act had not been amended since Hirst. As a result, the applicants were ineligible to vote in the May 2010 general election. As a result of section 8 of the 2002 Act, the applicants were also ineligible to vote in the June 2009 European elections. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 for both applicants.
Article 13 (effective remedy)
The Court recalled that Article 13 did not guarantee a remedy allowing the national laws (in the applicants’ cases section 3 of the 1983 Act and section 8 of the 2002 Act) of a State which had ratified the European Convention on Human Rights to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention or to equivalent domestic legal norms. There had therefore been no violation of Article 13.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court found that “it was a cause for regret and concern” that, in the five years which had passed since the Hirst judgment, no amending measures had been brought forward by the Government.
However, the Court did not consider that aggravated or punitive damages were appropriate in the applicants’ cases.
The Court noted the recent decision of the Committee of Ministers, which made reference to the fact that the new UK Government was “actively considering the best way of implementing the judgment” in Hirst. While the Court accepted that the continuing prohibition on voting might be frustrating for prisoners who could reasonably expect potentially to benefit from a change in the law, it nonetheless concluded that the finding of a violation, taken together with the Court’s directions under Article 46, constituted sufficient just satisfaction in the applicants’ cases.
The Court held that the United Kingdom was to pay the applicants 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. The award was limited to the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and reflected the fact that extensive written submissions were lodged. In any future cases the Court noted that it would be likely to consider that legal costs were not reasonably and necessarily incurred and, therefore, make no award for costs under Article 41.
Article 46 (pilot judgment procedure)
The Court decided to apply its pilot judgment procedure to the case, under Article 46, given the United Kingdom’s lengthy delay in implementing the decision in Hirst and the significant number of repetitive applications received by the Court shortly before, and in the six month’s following, the May 2010 general election.
Specific measures
The Court emphasised that the finding of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the applicants’ cases was the direct result of the failure to comply with the Hirst judgment.
One of the fundamental implications of the pilot judgment procedure was that the Court’s assessment of the situation complained of in a “pilot” case necessarily extended beyond the sole interests of the individual applicant/s and required it to examine that case from the perspective of general measures that needed to be taken in the interest of other people who might be affected. As the Court had already indicated, the prevailing situation had given rise to the lodging of numerous subsequent well-founded applications.
The Court had received approximately 2,500 applications in which a similar complaint had been made, around 1,500 of which had been registered and were awaiting a decision. The number continued to grow, and with each relevant election which passed without amended legislation, there was the potential for numerous new cases to be lodged. According to the United Kingdom Equality and Human Rights Commission, there were approximately 70,000 serving prisoners in the United Kingdom at any one time, all of whom were potential applicants. The failure of the United Kingdom to introduce the legislative proposals in question was not only an aggravating factor as regards the State’s responsibility under the Convention for an existing or past state of affairs, but also represented a threat to the future effectiveness of the Convention system.
The Court recalled that, in Hirst, the Grand Chamber left to the discretion of the United Kingdom the decision as to how precisely to secure the right to vote guaranteed by the Convention. Hirst was currently under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. It was not disputed by the Government that general measures at national level were needed to ensure the proper execution of the Hirst judgment. It was also clear that legislative change was required to bring United Kingdom electoral law in line with the Convention. Given the lengthy delay which had already occurred and the results of that delay, the Court, like the Committee of Ministers, was anxious to encourage the quickest and most effective solution to the problem, in compliance with the Convention.
The Court considered that a wide range of policy alternatives were available to the United Kingdom Government which, following appropriate consultation, should, in the first instance, decide how to achieve compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 when introducing legislative proposals. Such proposals would then be examined by the Committee of Ministers.
However, while the Court did not consider it appropriate to specify the content of future legislative proposals, the lengthy delay to date had demonstrated the need for a timetable. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the United Kingdom had to introduce legislative proposals to amend section 3 of the 1983 Act and, if appropriate, section 8 of the 2002 Act, within six months of today’s judgment becoming final, with a view to the enactment of an electoral law to achieve compliance with the Court’s judgment in Hirst according to any time-scale determined by the Committee of Ministers.
Comparable cases
Given the findings in today’s judgment, and in Hirst, it was clear that every comparable case pending before the Court which satisfied the admissibility criteria would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. It was therefore to be regretted that the Government had not acted more quickly to rectify the situation before the European elections in 2009 and the general election in 2010. Further, while it was to be hoped that new legislation would be in place as soon as practically possible, it was far from apparent that an appropriate solution would be in place prior to the Scottish elections, scheduled for May 2011; and the likely consequence of that failure would be a wave of new applications to the Court.
The Court noted that no individual examination of comparable cases was required in order to assess appropriate redress and no financial compensation was payable. The only relevant remedy was a change in the law, which, while no doubt satisfying all those who had been or might be affected by the current blanket ban, could not undo past violations of the Convention concerning particular individuals. In the light of that and the six-month deadline fixed for introducing legislative proposals, the Court considered that the continued examination of each comparable case was no longer justified.
An amendment to the electoral law to achieve compliance with Hirst would also result in compliance with today’s judgment and any future judgment in any comparable case. In those circumstances, the Court did not think anything was to be gained, or that justice would be best served, by the repetition of its findings in a lengthy series of similar cases, which would be a significant drain on its resources and add to its already considerable caseload. In particular, such an exercise would not contribute usefully or in any meaningful way to the strengthening of human rights protection under the Convention.
The Court accordingly considered it appropriate to discontinue its examination of all registered applications raising similar complaints pending compliance by the United Kingdom with the instruction to introduce legislative proposals. In the event of such compliance, the Court proposed to strike out all such registered cases, without prejudice to its power to restore them to the list should the United Kingdom fail to comply. The Court also considered it appropriate to suspend the treatment of such applications which had not yet been registered, as well as future applications, without prejudice to any decision to recommence treatment of those cases if necessary.
The judgment is available only in English.
Eventually the MSM pick up on the story Guardian.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Greens and M.T. v. the United Kingdom (application nos. 60041/08 & 60054/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
A violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights and no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.
The case concerns the continued failure to amend the legislation imposing a blanket ban on voting in national and European elections for convicted prisoners in detention in the United Kingdom.
The Court found that the violation in today’s judgment was due to the United Kingdom’s failure to execute the Court’s Grand Chamber judgment in Hirst v. the United Kingdom No. 2 (no. 74025/01), delivered on 6 October 2005, in which it had also found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.
Applying its pilot judgment procedure, the Court has given the United Kingdom Government six months from the date when Greens and M.T. becomes final to introduce legislative proposals to bring the disputed law/s in line with the Convention. The Government is further required to enact the relevant legislation within any time frame decided by the Committee of Ministers, the executive arm of the Council of Europe, which supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.
The Court has also decided that it will not examine any comparable cases pending new legislation and proposes to strike out all such registered cases once legislation has been introduced.
Principal facts
The applicants are two British nationals, Robert Greens and M.T., who were both serving a prison sentence at HM Prison Peterhead at the time their applications were lodged with the Court. Mr Greens was eligible for release on parole from 29 May 2010, but it is not known whether he has been released. M.T. is scheduled to be released in November 2010.
On 23 June 2008 the applicants posted voter registration forms to the Electoral Registration Officer (“ERO”) for Grampian, using HM Prison Peterhead as their address.
They argued that, following the Hirst v. the United Kingdom (no. 2) judgment (among other things), the ERO was obliged to add their names to the electoral register.
On 12 August 2008, the ERO refused the applicants’ registration applications on the basis of their status as convicted prisoners in detention. Their appeals were unsuccessful.
Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 imposes a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners in detention irrespective of the length of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances. The legislation has not been amended since Hirst. As a result, the applicants were ineligible to vote in the United Kingdom General Election on 6 May 2010.
The blanket restriction introduced by section 3 of the 1983 Act was extended to elections to the European Parliament by section 8 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002. The applicants were therefore also ineligible to vote in the elections to the European Parliament on 4 June 2009.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
The applicants complained that the refusal to enrol them on the electoral register for domestic and European elections was in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. They also complained that they would potentially be banned from voting in the elections to the Scottish Parliament in May 2011. They further relied on Article 13.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 November 2008.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:
Lech Garlicki (Poland), President,
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),
Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),
Ledi Bianku (Albania),
Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova),
Vincent Anthony de Gaetano (Malta), Judges,
and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to vote)
The Court noted that the applicants had been prevented from voting in the June 2009 European elections and the May 2010 general election as a result of their status as convicted prisoners in detention. However, both men became eligible for/were scheduled for release well before the elections to the Scottish Parliament on 5 May 2011. Accordingly, the Court only examined their complaints under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in relation to the European and general elections.
Section 3 of the 1983 Act had not been amended since Hirst. As a result, the applicants were ineligible to vote in the May 2010 general election. As a result of section 8 of the 2002 Act, the applicants were also ineligible to vote in the June 2009 European elections. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 for both applicants.
Article 13 (effective remedy)
The Court recalled that Article 13 did not guarantee a remedy allowing the national laws (in the applicants’ cases section 3 of the 1983 Act and section 8 of the 2002 Act) of a State which had ratified the European Convention on Human Rights to be challenged before a national authority on the ground of being contrary to the Convention or to equivalent domestic legal norms. There had therefore been no violation of Article 13.
Article 41 (just satisfaction)
The Court found that “it was a cause for regret and concern” that, in the five years which had passed since the Hirst judgment, no amending measures had been brought forward by the Government.
However, the Court did not consider that aggravated or punitive damages were appropriate in the applicants’ cases.
The Court noted the recent decision of the Committee of Ministers, which made reference to the fact that the new UK Government was “actively considering the best way of implementing the judgment” in Hirst. While the Court accepted that the continuing prohibition on voting might be frustrating for prisoners who could reasonably expect potentially to benefit from a change in the law, it nonetheless concluded that the finding of a violation, taken together with the Court’s directions under Article 46, constituted sufficient just satisfaction in the applicants’ cases.
The Court held that the United Kingdom was to pay the applicants 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and expenses. The award was limited to the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights and reflected the fact that extensive written submissions were lodged. In any future cases the Court noted that it would be likely to consider that legal costs were not reasonably and necessarily incurred and, therefore, make no award for costs under Article 41.
Article 46 (pilot judgment procedure)
The Court decided to apply its pilot judgment procedure to the case, under Article 46, given the United Kingdom’s lengthy delay in implementing the decision in Hirst and the significant number of repetitive applications received by the Court shortly before, and in the six month’s following, the May 2010 general election.
Specific measures
The Court emphasised that the finding of a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 in the applicants’ cases was the direct result of the failure to comply with the Hirst judgment.
One of the fundamental implications of the pilot judgment procedure was that the Court’s assessment of the situation complained of in a “pilot” case necessarily extended beyond the sole interests of the individual applicant/s and required it to examine that case from the perspective of general measures that needed to be taken in the interest of other people who might be affected. As the Court had already indicated, the prevailing situation had given rise to the lodging of numerous subsequent well-founded applications.
The Court had received approximately 2,500 applications in which a similar complaint had been made, around 1,500 of which had been registered and were awaiting a decision. The number continued to grow, and with each relevant election which passed without amended legislation, there was the potential for numerous new cases to be lodged. According to the United Kingdom Equality and Human Rights Commission, there were approximately 70,000 serving prisoners in the United Kingdom at any one time, all of whom were potential applicants. The failure of the United Kingdom to introduce the legislative proposals in question was not only an aggravating factor as regards the State’s responsibility under the Convention for an existing or past state of affairs, but also represented a threat to the future effectiveness of the Convention system.
The Court recalled that, in Hirst, the Grand Chamber left to the discretion of the United Kingdom the decision as to how precisely to secure the right to vote guaranteed by the Convention. Hirst was currently under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers. It was not disputed by the Government that general measures at national level were needed to ensure the proper execution of the Hirst judgment. It was also clear that legislative change was required to bring United Kingdom electoral law in line with the Convention. Given the lengthy delay which had already occurred and the results of that delay, the Court, like the Committee of Ministers, was anxious to encourage the quickest and most effective solution to the problem, in compliance with the Convention.
The Court considered that a wide range of policy alternatives were available to the United Kingdom Government which, following appropriate consultation, should, in the first instance, decide how to achieve compliance with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 when introducing legislative proposals. Such proposals would then be examined by the Committee of Ministers.
However, while the Court did not consider it appropriate to specify the content of future legislative proposals, the lengthy delay to date had demonstrated the need for a timetable. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the United Kingdom had to introduce legislative proposals to amend section 3 of the 1983 Act and, if appropriate, section 8 of the 2002 Act, within six months of today’s judgment becoming final, with a view to the enactment of an electoral law to achieve compliance with the Court’s judgment in Hirst according to any time-scale determined by the Committee of Ministers.
Comparable cases
Given the findings in today’s judgment, and in Hirst, it was clear that every comparable case pending before the Court which satisfied the admissibility criteria would give rise to a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. It was therefore to be regretted that the Government had not acted more quickly to rectify the situation before the European elections in 2009 and the general election in 2010. Further, while it was to be hoped that new legislation would be in place as soon as practically possible, it was far from apparent that an appropriate solution would be in place prior to the Scottish elections, scheduled for May 2011; and the likely consequence of that failure would be a wave of new applications to the Court.
The Court noted that no individual examination of comparable cases was required in order to assess appropriate redress and no financial compensation was payable. The only relevant remedy was a change in the law, which, while no doubt satisfying all those who had been or might be affected by the current blanket ban, could not undo past violations of the Convention concerning particular individuals. In the light of that and the six-month deadline fixed for introducing legislative proposals, the Court considered that the continued examination of each comparable case was no longer justified.
An amendment to the electoral law to achieve compliance with Hirst would also result in compliance with today’s judgment and any future judgment in any comparable case. In those circumstances, the Court did not think anything was to be gained, or that justice would be best served, by the repetition of its findings in a lengthy series of similar cases, which would be a significant drain on its resources and add to its already considerable caseload. In particular, such an exercise would not contribute usefully or in any meaningful way to the strengthening of human rights protection under the Convention.
The Court accordingly considered it appropriate to discontinue its examination of all registered applications raising similar complaints pending compliance by the United Kingdom with the instruction to introduce legislative proposals. In the event of such compliance, the Court proposed to strike out all such registered cases, without prejudice to its power to restore them to the list should the United Kingdom fail to comply. The Court also considered it appropriate to suspend the treatment of such applications which had not yet been registered, as well as future applications, without prejudice to any decision to recommence treatment of those cases if necessary.
The judgment is available only in English.
Eventually the MSM pick up on the story Guardian.
The French-Anglo War of 30th November 2010
The French-Anglo War of 30th November 2010
The battle field is Strasbourg, France, and the combatants are the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe versus the UK State, that is, the Government (Executive), Parliament and Judiciary. The UK is attempting to shield behind public opinion, the media and the uninformed sound bites of politicians. However, in Hirst v UK (No2) the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled out denying the franchise to convicted prisoners based upon what might offend public opinion.
“In October 2005 it appeared that the final salvo had been fired in the UK government’s defence of the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners” (Jago, 2007). The legal battle may have been won on 6th October 2005, but instead of the ECtHR’s decision being directly applied into domestic law it falls to the Committee of Ministers to supervise execution of the judgment. This does not remove the onus upon the UK to fully comply with the Court’s judgment, but by passing the buck in this way to politicians it produced the unsatisfactory situation whereby the UK has ignored the Committee of Ministers increasingly strongly worded warnings and condemnations for 5 years.
Given that the Court had already excluded public opinion from the issue, it beggars belief that the Committee of Ministers allowed the UK Government under Labour to embark on two consultation exercises supposedly to gauge public opinion on the question of ‘whether convicted prisoners should get the franchise?’! In effect, the UK ran political rings around the Committee of Ministers. The onus is now firmly on the Committee of Ministers to ensure that the Coalition has no more time to dither any longer, or given any more wriggle room, and to invoke Rule 11 ‘infringement proceedings’ and send Hirst v UK (No2) back to the Court for a ruling on the UK’s failure to fully comply with the judgment. By using this tactic the UK has 6 months notice to get its act together, and if it does so then there is still scope for a final resolution. If this leverage is not applied then I can see this whole thing dragging out for another 5 years!
The Coalition is now in a weaker position in Strasbourg than Labour when they engaged in delaying tactics. The reasons being that the Council of Europe got new powers under the Lisbon Treaty, particularly in relation to Protocol 14: and because when a case reaches the 5 year stage of non-implementation the Committee of Ministers ratchets up the pressure being applied to the offending Member State and this includes applying sanctions. Under Labour the UK took advantage of the fact that the Committee of Ministers was a toothless watchdog. What has shifted the balance of power to the Committee of Ministers is the Interlaken process. The Interlaken Conference in February 2010 produced the Interlaken Declaration, which is, in my view, binding upon the UK because the then Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, signed it and laid copies before both Houses of Parliament.
In addition to the Interlaken process, the European Union has joined forces with the Council of Europe in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. On 16th of November 2010 the United Nations also joined forces with the Council of Europe proclaiming “Human rights must be pursued with determination everywhere”. I think it is time that the UK woke up and smelled the coffee.
I urge the Committee of Ministers to be on their guard for any proposals that the UK may put forward on the 30th of November which entails burying Hirst v UK (No2) within plans for wider constitutional reforms. The case was taken to Strasbourg by individual petition, and judged on its own merits, and should be fully complied with as a discrete issue by the UK. The wider constitutional reforms will have to be argued in Parliament, and will be subject to Bills having to be read and passed up and down between the Houses of Commons and Lords before they become law, if ever. It is too uncertain. Especially in a country where there is no enforcement machinery in place to ensure that the UK fully complies with the ECtHR judgments. It would be remiss of the Committee of Ministers now it has sharp teeth and not to bite with them when taunted. The UK is engaged in a power play with the Council of Europe, therefore it remains for the Committee of Ministers to make it plain that the UK is equal to a rogue or pariah state and must be dealt with accordingly.
This is the latest Committee of Ministers decision in Hirst v UK (No2)…
1092nd DH meeting – 15 September 2010
Section 4.3
- 1 case against the United Kingdom
74025/01 Hirst No. 2, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber
Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)160
Decisions
The Deputies,
1. recalled that in the present judgment, delivered on 6 October 2005, the Court found that the general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction of the right of convicted prisoners in custody to vote, fell outside any acceptable margin of appreciation and was incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
2. recalled that since its 1059th meeting (June 2009), the Committee has urged the United Kingdom to prevent future, repetitive applications by adopting general measures to implement the judgment;
3. deeply regretted that despite the Committee’s calls to the United Kingdom over the years to implement the judgment, the risk of repetitive applications to the European Court has materialised as the Court has communicated 3 applications to the government with a view to adopting the pilot judgment procedure and has received over 1 340 applications;
4. noted, that according to the information provided by the United Kingdom authorities during the meeting, the new government is actively considering the best way of implementing the judgment;
5. regretted, however, that no tangible and concrete information was presented to the Committee on how the United Kingdom now intends to abide by the judgment;
6. called upon the United Kingdom, to prioritise implementation of this judgment without any further delay and to inform the Committee of Ministers on the substantive steps taken in this respect;
7. highlighted in this connection that, within the margin of appreciation of the state, the measures to be adopted should ensure that if a restriction is maintained on the right of convicted persons in custody to vote, such a restriction is proportionate with a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction, and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned;
8. decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (November-December 2010) (DH) and instructed the Secretariat, in the absence of any concrete developments, to prepare a draft second interim resolution. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Del/Dec%282010%291092&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=immediat&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383
And this is the latest response by the UK…
On the 16th of November 2010 Kenneth Clarke, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, was questioned by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. There is a video available, http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6981 and the uncorrected transcript provided below begins at 15.31pm.
The Chairman: Could we now move on to the implementation of human rights judgments, particularly with regard to prisoners’ voting rights?
Q36 Lord Dubs: I wonder if I could raise the vexed question of prisoners’ voting rights. Could I say, and I’m sure I’m not allowed to say it, that as long as there’s a coalition Government, I think you two are the good guys, okay? Would you care to comment on the issue of prisoners’ voting rights, which I know has raised a wave of hysteria out of all proportion to the issue?
Mr Kenneth Clarke MP: Shall I kick off? The hysteria is rather late coming. The relevant judgment is five years old. To my recollection, the previous Government carried out at least two consultation processes on how they were going to implement it. I have no doubt that because of some of the reaction, in the end they came to no conclusions, so we do have to come to a conclusion on this. We have a mounting number of cases against us and we have to come to some conclusions, otherwise we’ll have the absurd situation whereby we’re still considering whether or not to comply. We’re not there yet, but some court will start awarding damages to all these people making claims against us. If there’s one thing that will stoke up public fury even higher, it is if people start getting awarded damages for some breach of their human rights by not being allowed to vote. We’re having to consider how to implement the legal obligation and I think there’s no point in getting away from the legal obligation. The fact is the extent of the legal obligation is a little confused. We’ve now got two judgments and various comments both from British and European courts, but two European judgments that aren’t really consistent with each other. Compliance with these judgments by different members of the Council of Europe has been very varied. We’re by no means the only one that is a long way behind, but we’re going to have to come to a conclusion as soon as we can do so. The hysteria was slightly provoked by some rather extreme fears that people had in Parliament. I have to be cautious because the Government has to take a considered view on all this, but people who had the idea that their local government elections were going to be dominated by rapists, murderers and all the rest of it were taking a rather strong view of where we’re likely to go. It’s the blanket ban on all prisoners having the vote that was not upheld by the European Court. I hesitate on this occasion to go into the nuances of what lies below that-that has yet to be decided. I heard some of the fears expressed in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I didn’t think anything was going to occur of the kind that was causing such alarm to quite a lot of my colleagues.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I don’t know whether you know this, but Cyprus and Ireland, which are not directly bound, overnight implemented it simply by giving postal votes. Hong Kong in its own way did, and for some reason there was no fuss in those jurisdictions at all. Of course the Committee of Ministers will be considering this in a couple of weeks’ time, and indeed some of the officials who are on that committee on the enforcement mechanism are sitting behind you. Will you be reporting to them for what’s called the DH meeting on your progress?
Mr Kenneth Clarke MP: Yes. I hope we make progress in the next fortnight but I can’t guarantee that. I am aware of that. There will be a fuss here. I have not the slightest doubt. On the actual mechanics of voting, I don’t see any problem at all. Prisoners on remand can vote now. Not many of them bother to do so, but prisoners on remand do vote by post if they want to. Facilitating the vote is not really the problem. They are usually registered in their home constituency; they are not all registered in the prison where they happen to be currently and involuntarily residing. A remand prisoner just casts a vote if he or she wants in his or her home constituency. I don’t think anyone’s ever complained about that, probably because people aren’t even aware of it. Of course, there is no doubt that they should be allowed to vote, because they haven’t been convicted of anything; they are being held pending trial. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201011/jtselect/jtrights/uc609-i/uc60901.htm
The UK is waving the White Flag of Surrender in one hand, and firing a gun at the Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe and ECtHR in the other hand. If the Committee of Ministers does not take this opportunity to make an example of the UK, as decided at the Interlaken Conference then the Court is finished. The Convention is unenforceable and therefore meaningless. “No more Jaw-jaw, it’s war-war” (Churchill). And the Suffragette Movement’s motto was “Deeds not words”. Prisoners have a saying “Put up, or shut up”. Actions speak louder than words. If the Committee of Ministers fails to take action this time it can only mean that they are as bad as the UK and just as responsible for the human rights abuse of 75,000 convicted prisoners. To allow the UK to continue to vote in the Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe, European Union and United Nations is only adding insult to injury. At the very least the UK should have its vote suspended until it fully complies with Hirst v UK (No2). As Frodl v Austria decided, relying upon Hirst v UK (No2), all prisoners must have the human right to vote because they are all human beings, including murderers, rapists and paedophiles.
The battle field is Strasbourg, France, and the combatants are the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe versus the UK State, that is, the Government (Executive), Parliament and Judiciary. The UK is attempting to shield behind public opinion, the media and the uninformed sound bites of politicians. However, in Hirst v UK (No2) the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled out denying the franchise to convicted prisoners based upon what might offend public opinion.
“In October 2005 it appeared that the final salvo had been fired in the UK government’s defence of the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners” (Jago, 2007). The legal battle may have been won on 6th October 2005, but instead of the ECtHR’s decision being directly applied into domestic law it falls to the Committee of Ministers to supervise execution of the judgment. This does not remove the onus upon the UK to fully comply with the Court’s judgment, but by passing the buck in this way to politicians it produced the unsatisfactory situation whereby the UK has ignored the Committee of Ministers increasingly strongly worded warnings and condemnations for 5 years.
Given that the Court had already excluded public opinion from the issue, it beggars belief that the Committee of Ministers allowed the UK Government under Labour to embark on two consultation exercises supposedly to gauge public opinion on the question of ‘whether convicted prisoners should get the franchise?’! In effect, the UK ran political rings around the Committee of Ministers. The onus is now firmly on the Committee of Ministers to ensure that the Coalition has no more time to dither any longer, or given any more wriggle room, and to invoke Rule 11 ‘infringement proceedings’ and send Hirst v UK (No2) back to the Court for a ruling on the UK’s failure to fully comply with the judgment. By using this tactic the UK has 6 months notice to get its act together, and if it does so then there is still scope for a final resolution. If this leverage is not applied then I can see this whole thing dragging out for another 5 years!
The Coalition is now in a weaker position in Strasbourg than Labour when they engaged in delaying tactics. The reasons being that the Council of Europe got new powers under the Lisbon Treaty, particularly in relation to Protocol 14: and because when a case reaches the 5 year stage of non-implementation the Committee of Ministers ratchets up the pressure being applied to the offending Member State and this includes applying sanctions. Under Labour the UK took advantage of the fact that the Committee of Ministers was a toothless watchdog. What has shifted the balance of power to the Committee of Ministers is the Interlaken process. The Interlaken Conference in February 2010 produced the Interlaken Declaration, which is, in my view, binding upon the UK because the then Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, signed it and laid copies before both Houses of Parliament.
In addition to the Interlaken process, the European Union has joined forces with the Council of Europe in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights. On 16th of November 2010 the United Nations also joined forces with the Council of Europe proclaiming “Human rights must be pursued with determination everywhere”. I think it is time that the UK woke up and smelled the coffee.
I urge the Committee of Ministers to be on their guard for any proposals that the UK may put forward on the 30th of November which entails burying Hirst v UK (No2) within plans for wider constitutional reforms. The case was taken to Strasbourg by individual petition, and judged on its own merits, and should be fully complied with as a discrete issue by the UK. The wider constitutional reforms will have to be argued in Parliament, and will be subject to Bills having to be read and passed up and down between the Houses of Commons and Lords before they become law, if ever. It is too uncertain. Especially in a country where there is no enforcement machinery in place to ensure that the UK fully complies with the ECtHR judgments. It would be remiss of the Committee of Ministers now it has sharp teeth and not to bite with them when taunted. The UK is engaged in a power play with the Council of Europe, therefore it remains for the Committee of Ministers to make it plain that the UK is equal to a rogue or pariah state and must be dealt with accordingly.
This is the latest Committee of Ministers decision in Hirst v UK (No2)…
1092nd DH meeting – 15 September 2010
Section 4.3
- 1 case against the United Kingdom
74025/01 Hirst No. 2, judgment of 06/10/2005 - Grand Chamber
Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)160
Decisions
The Deputies,
1. recalled that in the present judgment, delivered on 6 October 2005, the Court found that the general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction of the right of convicted prisoners in custody to vote, fell outside any acceptable margin of appreciation and was incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention;
2. recalled that since its 1059th meeting (June 2009), the Committee has urged the United Kingdom to prevent future, repetitive applications by adopting general measures to implement the judgment;
3. deeply regretted that despite the Committee’s calls to the United Kingdom over the years to implement the judgment, the risk of repetitive applications to the European Court has materialised as the Court has communicated 3 applications to the government with a view to adopting the pilot judgment procedure and has received over 1 340 applications;
4. noted, that according to the information provided by the United Kingdom authorities during the meeting, the new government is actively considering the best way of implementing the judgment;
5. regretted, however, that no tangible and concrete information was presented to the Committee on how the United Kingdom now intends to abide by the judgment;
6. called upon the United Kingdom, to prioritise implementation of this judgment without any further delay and to inform the Committee of Ministers on the substantive steps taken in this respect;
7. highlighted in this connection that, within the margin of appreciation of the state, the measures to be adopted should ensure that if a restriction is maintained on the right of convicted persons in custody to vote, such a restriction is proportionate with a discernible and sufficient link between the sanction, and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned;
8. decided to resume consideration of this item at their 1100th meeting (November-December 2010) (DH) and instructed the Secretariat, in the absence of any concrete developments, to prepare a draft second interim resolution. https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CM/Del/Dec%282010%291092&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=immediat&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383
And this is the latest response by the UK…
On the 16th of November 2010 Kenneth Clarke, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, was questioned by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. There is a video available, http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=6981 and the uncorrected transcript provided below begins at 15.31pm.
The Chairman: Could we now move on to the implementation of human rights judgments, particularly with regard to prisoners’ voting rights?
Q36 Lord Dubs: I wonder if I could raise the vexed question of prisoners’ voting rights. Could I say, and I’m sure I’m not allowed to say it, that as long as there’s a coalition Government, I think you two are the good guys, okay? Would you care to comment on the issue of prisoners’ voting rights, which I know has raised a wave of hysteria out of all proportion to the issue?
Mr Kenneth Clarke MP: Shall I kick off? The hysteria is rather late coming. The relevant judgment is five years old. To my recollection, the previous Government carried out at least two consultation processes on how they were going to implement it. I have no doubt that because of some of the reaction, in the end they came to no conclusions, so we do have to come to a conclusion on this. We have a mounting number of cases against us and we have to come to some conclusions, otherwise we’ll have the absurd situation whereby we’re still considering whether or not to comply. We’re not there yet, but some court will start awarding damages to all these people making claims against us. If there’s one thing that will stoke up public fury even higher, it is if people start getting awarded damages for some breach of their human rights by not being allowed to vote. We’re having to consider how to implement the legal obligation and I think there’s no point in getting away from the legal obligation. The fact is the extent of the legal obligation is a little confused. We’ve now got two judgments and various comments both from British and European courts, but two European judgments that aren’t really consistent with each other. Compliance with these judgments by different members of the Council of Europe has been very varied. We’re by no means the only one that is a long way behind, but we’re going to have to come to a conclusion as soon as we can do so. The hysteria was slightly provoked by some rather extreme fears that people had in Parliament. I have to be cautious because the Government has to take a considered view on all this, but people who had the idea that their local government elections were going to be dominated by rapists, murderers and all the rest of it were taking a rather strong view of where we’re likely to go. It’s the blanket ban on all prisoners having the vote that was not upheld by the European Court. I hesitate on this occasion to go into the nuances of what lies below that-that has yet to be decided. I heard some of the fears expressed in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I didn’t think anything was going to occur of the kind that was causing such alarm to quite a lot of my colleagues.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I don’t know whether you know this, but Cyprus and Ireland, which are not directly bound, overnight implemented it simply by giving postal votes. Hong Kong in its own way did, and for some reason there was no fuss in those jurisdictions at all. Of course the Committee of Ministers will be considering this in a couple of weeks’ time, and indeed some of the officials who are on that committee on the enforcement mechanism are sitting behind you. Will you be reporting to them for what’s called the DH meeting on your progress?
Mr Kenneth Clarke MP: Yes. I hope we make progress in the next fortnight but I can’t guarantee that. I am aware of that. There will be a fuss here. I have not the slightest doubt. On the actual mechanics of voting, I don’t see any problem at all. Prisoners on remand can vote now. Not many of them bother to do so, but prisoners on remand do vote by post if they want to. Facilitating the vote is not really the problem. They are usually registered in their home constituency; they are not all registered in the prison where they happen to be currently and involuntarily residing. A remand prisoner just casts a vote if he or she wants in his or her home constituency. I don’t think anyone’s ever complained about that, probably because people aren’t even aware of it. Of course, there is no doubt that they should be allowed to vote, because they haven’t been convicted of anything; they are being held pending trial. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201011/jtselect/jtrights/uc609-i/uc60901.htm
The UK is waving the White Flag of Surrender in one hand, and firing a gun at the Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe and ECtHR in the other hand. If the Committee of Ministers does not take this opportunity to make an example of the UK, as decided at the Interlaken Conference then the Court is finished. The Convention is unenforceable and therefore meaningless. “No more Jaw-jaw, it’s war-war” (Churchill). And the Suffragette Movement’s motto was “Deeds not words”. Prisoners have a saying “Put up, or shut up”. Actions speak louder than words. If the Committee of Ministers fails to take action this time it can only mean that they are as bad as the UK and just as responsible for the human rights abuse of 75,000 convicted prisoners. To allow the UK to continue to vote in the Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe, European Union and United Nations is only adding insult to injury. At the very least the UK should have its vote suspended until it fully complies with Hirst v UK (No2). As Frodl v Austria decided, relying upon Hirst v UK (No2), all prisoners must have the human right to vote because they are all human beings, including murderers, rapists and paedophiles.