Dominic Grieve starts off by stating that the topic of prisoners’ votes is an acute controversy in the UK. There is the view that convicted prisoners should have the vote. They are entitled to hold this view. But, there is a reasonably held view that they should be denied the vote.
The Court of Appeal in Chester was unquestionably correct when it stated that there are deep philosophical differences.
Grieve refers to the Backbench Business Committee’s sham debate in the Commons to retain the voting ban.
No consensus in Europe on the issue, again mentions reasonably held view to deny the franchise.
He asks a question, how are these deep philosophical differences to be resolved? He submits that this should be a political question. He states that this should be for national Parliaments to answer. He adds that this view is supported by the jurisprudence of the Court. And states that it falls within the margin of appreciation.
Grieve states that the Court should only intervene when the social policy is manifestly without reasonable foundation.
He states that it cannot reasonably be argued that UK’s blanket policy is manifestly without reasonable foundation.
He invites the Court to revisit the conclusion in Hirst. Commends it to the Court. States it would be a brave step. But the right one in principle.
He invites the Court to reject in Scoppola the requirement for judicial determination for disenfranchisement. He states it is contrary to the majority in Hirst.
He states that Frodl was wrongly decided and misinterpreted Hirst.
He asks the Court to reject the ruling in Greens which relied upon Frodl.
UK Government
Dominic Grieve, Attorney General and MP, and James Eadie, COUNSEL;
Derek Walton, Ahila Sornarajah, AGENTS;
Janet Hall, Phillipa Baker, ADVISORS.
As bonfire night appoaches Dominic Grieve's big bang theory sounded more like a damp squib. Notice 6 in the UK legal team. How much did all this cost the taxpayers?
Government tells European judges no right to meddle with UK prisoner vote policy
Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, has told a panel of powerful European judges they should not interfere in the UK's ban on votes for prisoners.
The Government’s top legal adviser argued in the European Court of Human Rights that its judges should not be telling countries what to do on controversial social questions.
He travelled to Strasbourg to urge the court "not follow the road of seeking to impose restrictive uniform solutions".
“The issue of voting rights for convicted prisoners has been the subject of acute controversy in the United Kingdom in recent years,” Mr Grieve told the judges.
Issues such as whether to give prisoners votes are a “political question” for national parliaments to decide, he added.
The Attorney General’s efforts to curb the powers of European judges comes the week after the Prime Minister promised to claw back powers from Brussels.
David Cameron said he would demand more British control over employment and social laws in return for supporting a new European treaty to shore up the single currency.
The UK is already on a collision course with Europe over the issue of prisoner voting. The European court has ruled that Britain must lift its blanket ban on prisoners participating in elections.
However, parliament earlier this year decided to keep laws stopping people in jail from voting, setting its laws at odds with the European judgement.
Mr Grieve’s appearance in the European court was a rare “intervention” in a separate case due to be ruled on next year.
The judges were considering Italy’s battle with Franco Scoppola, who is serving a life sentence for murdering his wife and wants to be allowed to vote.
Mr Grieve was allowed to make his submission as a “third party”. He said that when ruling on the UK, the court had not given sufficient weight to “different approaches between states to the same social issue”.
“Such restrictions are inevitably bound up with the political culture and political evolution of each state,” Mr Grieve said. “Provided that restrictions on the right to vote are not arbitrary and do not prejudice the free expression of the opinion of the people, different states are properly entitled … to take different views.”
Britain was meant to have shown “progress” in lifting its ban on prisoner voting by October.
But the European Court has now granted the UK a temporary reprieve, saying it does not have to take action until six months after the verdict in the Italian case.
The Attorney General’s intervention is likely to please backbench Conservative MPs who argued in parliament last week that Europe has too many powers.
A cross-party group of rebels wanted UK citizens to have a vote on whether to leave the Europe Union.
Almost 80 Conservative MPs disobeyed their leader by voting for the motion in favour of a referendum.
Mr Cameron has promised to attempt a repatriation of powers, but he risks alienating Lib Dem members of his government who strongly support Britain’s relationship with Europe.
European judges have no right to rule on prisoner voting, says Grieve
Attorney general calls for politicians to be given back powers over the 'culture of their own particular state' in address to European court of human rights
Attorney General Dominic Grieve Tells European Court Of Human Rights To Back Off On Prisoner Votes
The coalition government’s top legal adviser, the Attorney General Dominic Grieve appeared before the Justices of the European Court Of Human Rights (ECtHR) and politely but firmly told them not to interfere with decisions by individual countries on whether to grant voting rights to prisoners.
Earlier in the year, the Parliament voted with overwhelming majority to reject the ruling by the ECtHR to grant voting rights to prisoners. The United Kingdom was told that if we do not comply with the ECtHR decision, then the public purse would have to compensate prisoners for violating the human rights.
However, the ECtHR has granted an extension and said that the UK would not have to comply with the decision until the Strasbourg case makes a decision on Italy vs Franco Scoppola, a murderer who wants his voting rights back. The Attorney General Dominic Grieve appeared before the Strasbourg Court as an interested third party and echoed the thoughts of the Lord Chief Justice who has recently said that Strasbourg decision is not binding on Britain.
The Attorney General told the Strasbourg Court that in ordering the UK to grant voting rights to prisoners, the ECtHR had failed to take into account the “different approaches” adopted by different countries on “same social issues”.
“Such restrictions are inevitably bound up with the political culture and political evolution of each state,” Mr Grieve said. “Provided that restrictions on the right to vote are not arbitrary and do not prejudice the free expression of the opinion of the people, different states are properly entitled … to take different views.”
The Attorney General argued that it is not up to the ECtHR but member states to ensure that they comply with Human Rights. “The United Kingdom agrees that this should be the guiding principle governing the relationship between our national courts and the European Court of Human Rights.”
However, he did acknowledge that the UK would have to still comply with decisions from the ECtHR but however pointed out that the court in Strasbourg should not interfere in cases “that have already been properly considered by the national courts applying the Convention.”
The decision by the government to challenge the ECtHR would please Cameron’s backbenchers who are keen for him to bring back powers both from Brussels and Strasbourg.
No comments:
Post a Comment