UK Supreme Court - Prisoners' Right to Vote

Hurst v The UK (2005)

Picture Credit - The Guardian

By Vincent Chow

No prisoners serving a sentence in the UK are allowed to vote. The on-going debate in the UK concerning the question of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections can largely be attributed to the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2005, that the UK’s disenfranchisement of all prisoners contravenes the European Convention of Human Rights.

Ever since that fateful day in 2005, the issue of prisoners’ right to vote has become a mainstay of the UK political scene. The issue has traversed various debates, capable of evoking a wide array of discussions ranging from voting rights and the treatment of criminals, to Parliament’s sovereignty and the relationship between British European law.

Why then haven’t any prisoners been given the right to vote since the European Court’s ruling?

It is because the Human Rights Act only instructs Parliament to pass legislation that is compatible with the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights). The HRA does not entrench these rights into British law, therefore preserving Parliament’s sovereignty.

This fact is reflected by the Supreme Court’s dismissals of the appeals of Chester and McGeoch in October 2013. The two convicted murderers argued that they should be allowed to vote in European elections, because the ECHR allows them to do so.

In his calls for the Supreme Court to dismiss the two appeals, Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, argued that the Court is not bound to apply the ECHR to UK law, only take them into account when ruling on the legality of any UK legislation.

In its ruling, the court ultimately agreed with Grieve’s arguments, maintaining that the issue of prisoners’ right to vote still remains a matter for national Parliaments: “Eligibility to vote in member states is basically a matter for national legislatures."

However, the government has conceded that they must introduce reforms, largely because of political reasons. They are reluctant to set a precedent where they outright defy an international convention of which the UK is a signatory of.

This is why there is currently a draft bill being passed through Parliament, and is being scrutinized by a cross-party committee. It represents a compromise between MPs who completely oppose any prisoners being given the vote, and Parliament’s international obligations to comply with the ECHR.

The Supreme Court’s involvement in this issue is significant because it illustrates the awkward position the judiciary is often put into in legal matters where European law directly conflicts with UK law. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the two prisoners’ appeals had little to no impact on Parliament. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament’s existing ban on prisoner’s voting is legal under UK law, Parliament is still expected to introduce reforms to allow some prisoners the vote in order to fulfill European obligations.