Prisoners must get the vote (says peer who's supposed to be neutral)

Prisoners must get the vote (says peer who's supposed to be neutral)

By James Chapman
Last updated at 10:55 PM on 10th March 2011



Britain must abide by the ‘rule of law’ and give prisoners the vote, a leading QC on David Cameron’s inquiry into how to rein in European judges has declared.

Liberal Democrat Lord Lester, a ‘founding father’ of the controversial Human Rights Act, appeared to pre-judge one of the key issues of the Government probe.

The QC will be unveiled next week as a leading member of the Coalition’s commission on the Bill of Rights, which is supposed to examine whether new legislation is needed to curb the power of the European Court of Human Rights.

There have been growing demands from Tory MPs that the ECHR should be weakened after it ordered the Government to grant prisoners the vote at general elections.

But Lord Lester said Britain would have to comply with Strasbourg’s demands.

‘Prisoners’ voting is just a rule of law issue,’ he said.

‘How can we say to Russia or Turkey or Moldova “you must comply with the rule of law” if we have got a binding judgment and say we are not going to abide by it?

‘That is much more important than prisoners’ voting and we will have to comply because of that.’

Lord Lester’s intervention will infuriate Tory backbenchers who voted in the Commons last month to defy Strasbourg.

The involvement of civil liberties campaigner Baroness Kennedy in the commission has also fuelled doubts that it will propose radical reform.

Tory MP Dominic Raab dismissed Lord Lester’s argument.

‘The real threat to the rule of law now comes from Strasbourg. Over half the judges never sat in a court before,’ he said.

‘It demonstrates a wholesale lack of moral clarity to say Britain can’t criticise torturing tyrants or systemic human rights abuses unless we give convicted prisoners the vote.’

Comment: What a strange headline. "Prisoners must get the vote (says peer who's supposed to be neutral)".

I see nothing wrong with Lord Lester expressing an opinion which accords with the UK's obligations under the European Convention. The Daily Mail is attacking Lord Lester for not being neutral, and yet the Daily Mail does not explain why he is deemed to be biased.

"Britain must abide by the ‘rule of law’ and give prisoners the vote, a leading QC on David Cameron’s inquiry into how to rein in European judges has declared".

Once again, Lord Lester is merely stating the obvious. First David Cameron allowed the Tory backbenchers a pointless motion, debate and vote in the Commons on prisoners votes, and now he is setting up an equally pointless inquiry. Given that the UK has signed up to the Convention, which includes a requirement to abide by the European Court decisions it appears to make no sense to investigate how to curb the jurisdiction of European judges. As the UK is but 1/47th of the Council of Europe, it requires the agreement of the other 46 Member States to reform the ECtHR. Moreover, this process has to be in Strasbourg and not in the UK. I suspect that the other 46 countries will be laughing their heads off at the antics of this tin pot Greek colonel dictator from the 1960s which David Cameron is behaving like.

"Liberal Democrat Lord Lester, a ‘founding father’ of the controversial Human Rights Act, appeared to pre-judge one of the key issues of the Government probe".

It is a matter of public record that Lord Lester was instrumental in introducing the Human Rights Act, but if it is controversial then it is not because the legislation goes too far rather it is because it does not go far enough. Unless I am seriously mistaken, one of the key Government probes is not whether convicted prisoners should have the vote because the highest court in Europe has already decided this issue in the affirmative.

"The QC will be unveiled next week as a leading member of the Coalition’s commission on the Bill of Rights, which is supposed to examine whether new legislation is needed to curb the power of the European Court of Human Rights".

We have gone from an inquiry to curb the judges jurisdiction in the ECtHR to a commission on a Bill of Rights, and to examine the need for new legislation. The UK cannot pass legislation to curb the jurisdiction of the ECtHR simply because the UK has no power to do this as the UK's jurisdiction does not extend to Strasbourg and stops withing the borders of the UK.

Dominic Raab has got his head stuck in the sand like an ostrich. Hirst v UK (No2) has shown that the UK is in breach of the rule of law by denying convicted prisoners the vote. And, we cannot moralise to other countries to clean up their human right record when ours is still as bad as it is. Perhaps, if the idiot was sued for negligence he might take a different view?