17 December 2010
The Government has confirmed proposals for prisoner voting rights which will prevent the most serious offenders from voting.
The move follows a court ruling which the Government is obliged to implement.
Under the proposals, all offenders sentenced to four years or more will automatically be barred from registering to vote. Prisoners sentenced to less than four years will retain the right to vote, unless the sentencing judge removes it.
Constitutional Reform Minister Mark Harper said:
"The Government has brought these proposals forward as a result of a court ruling which it is obliged to implement. This is not a choice, it is a legal obligation. We are ensuring the most serious offenders will continue to be barred from voting.
“If the Government failed to implement this judgement, we would not only be in breach of our international obligations but could be risking taxpayers’ money in paying out compensation claims".
The right to vote will be restricted to Westminster Parliamentary elections and European Parliament elections only. If a prisoner is allowed to keep their right to vote, they would do so either by post or proxy. Prisoners will not be registered at the prison, but at their former address or an area where they have a local connection.
A bar on serving prisoners voting was put in place in 1870. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of John Hirst that the existing ban on prisoners being able to vote was contrary to Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to free and fair elections.
An announcement will be made to Parliament on Monday 20 December. Legislation will be brought forward next year for Parliament to debate.
Comment: "The Government has confirmed proposals for prisoner voting rights which will prevent the most serious offenders from voting". This does not make sense because in one sentence it talks about prisoners voting rights being granted and prisoners voting rights being removed. In other words, it is a nonsense statement. The government's proposals are contrary to the claim "The move follows a court ruling which the Government is obliged to implement". In Hirst v UK (No2) the ruling requires that all convicted prisoners must have the human right to vote, and given that the government concedes it is obliged to implement it why has the government then come up with proposals to largely ignore the ruling? "Under the proposals, all offenders sentenced to four years or more will automatically be barred from registering to vote. Prisoners sentenced to less than four years will retain the right to vote, unless the sentencing judge removes it". In Hirst v UK (No2), the Court ruled that neither seriousness of crime nor length of sentence could be a factor for the removal of so basic a human right as the right to the franchise. Therefore, it beggars belief that the government has even come forward with such proposals. The proposals fail to meet the twin aims of being legitimate and proportionate. In effect, a blanket ban will remain in force for all those prisoners serving 4 years or over regardless of the nature of their crimes. This in my view is still too indiscriminate. The Court ruled that only in the very limited circumstance for example someone convicted of electoral fraud or abuse of a public office could the vote be removed. And only then if the right was removed by a judge. Therefore, it leaves no scope for the right to be removed by the Executive or Parliament, which the government's proposals are advocating. In my view, these proposals are nothing short of a contempt of court. The UK is challenging the Council of Europe's power. If the UK is allowed to get away with this unchallenged by the Council of Europe, then according to the Interlaken Conference the ECtHR, Committee of Ministers and Council of Europe is finished.
Mark Harper is being untruthful when he states: "The Government has brought these proposals forward as a result of a court ruling". These proposals are not as a result of my court ruling. Whilst my case does require changes to be made to the law, these proposals are an attempt to limit my ruling and have been advanced to appease the Tory hard right. It is the Committee of Ministers which has to be satisfied and not the 1922 Committee. The obligation on the UK is to ensure that all citizens in the UK get their human rights under the Convention and not "We are ensuring the most serious offenders will continue to be barred from voting".
"If the Government failed to implement this judgement, we would not only be in breach of our international obligations but could be risking taxpayers’ money in paying out compensation claims". What is missing from this is the word "fully" as in fully complying with the judgment. Any half measure such as these proposals obviously will be seen by the Committee of Ministers as a failure to implement my judgment. Therefore, the UK remains in breach of its international obligations.
Mark Harper is also being untruthful about risking taxpayers money. Already, as a result of ignoring my judgment for 5 years, the taxpayers are facing a £135m bill to compensate prisoners who were denied their human right to vote in last year's European election and May's general election. And, if this is all not sorted out in time for May 2011 elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the AV referendum in England then the bill for the taxpayers could be as high as £270m - £300m.
"The right to vote will be restricted to Westminster Parliamentary elections and European Parliament elections only". This also does not go far enough because it fails to take into account local elections.
Clearly, the government's proposals are contrary to Article 3 of the First Protocol.
"Legislation will be brought forward next year for Parliament to debate". One of my arguments to the Court, which was accepted, was that Parliament had not debated the issue of whether convicted prisoners should have the right to vote. Therefore, what is there to debate now? The time has passed for any debate. The UK is in the absurd situation of if it debates the issue and decides to vote against the government proposals, then the UK is still in violation of the Convention. The main issue is not "let's debate it and reject it", but fully complying with the Court judgment which is already in place.
No comments:
Post a Comment