Prisoners and Voting Reform

By Alexandra White Meek, L6

For the last decade, there has been an on-going debate as to whether prisoners should have the right to vote, because they have had their liberty taken away from them. Since the 19^th century, the UK has said that prisoners have been confined for a reason, and therefore they shouldn’t have a say in the running of the country. Despite the European Court saying that this practice was unlawful in 2004, the UK Parliament has made no move on changing this policy. More recently, changes have been considered. In February 2011 in the House of Commons, a back-bench debate took place, and the MPs continued to support Jack Straw in his attempt to reject the proposed motion.

In April 2011, the European Court stated that it would give the UK 6 months in order to introduce legislative proposals. Later that year in September, the UK Parliament requested an extension on this deadline, in order to review the case.

Director of the Prison Reform Trust, Juliet Lyon,has said: “People are sent to prison to lose their liberty nottheir identity. The UK’s out-dated ban on sentenced prisoners voting, based on the 19th century concept of civic death, has no place in a modern democracy and is legally and morally unsustainable. Experienced prison governors and officials, past and present bishops to prisons and chief inspectors, electoral commissioners, legal and constitutional experts and most other European governments believe people in prison should be able to exercise their civic responsibility. The European Court has made clear in today’s judgement the UK’s legal obligations to overturn the blanket ban.”

More recently, two prisoners, one having committed murder, applied to be able to vote in the EU election, however were denied this privilege, and were told that they would not gain this until the law was changed or they were released. One of them, Peter Chester, having served his minimum sentence, was reviewed by the Parole Board, but was put back into prison due to him apparently being too dangerous. Therefore, many believe that this is a positive move by the government, because some would say that people such as Chester should not be able to vote. The PM, David Cameron stated to the Commons that this ruling was, “a great victory for common sense.”

This case and the debate is useful for AS students contemplating Human Rights and the implications of a codified UK Constitution in Unit 2. The nature of the UK's relationship with the EU, or rather the European Court of Human Rights which is different to EU itself is also an issue here.

Human Rights and Terrorism in the UK - Miranda Rights

By Jamie Barr, L6

David Miranda is accused of being terrorist. He is the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has covered many stories based on leaks by US whistleblower Edward Snowden. On the 18^th of August Miranda was stopped in Heathrow, while changing planes from Berlin to Rio De Janeiro, and detained for up nine hours under the law 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The reason for him being detained was because it was believed he was carrying secret documents. Further, controversy was caused because he was detained for the full nine hours compared to the usual of less then seven hours. His lawyers are arguing his detention of the maximumperiod allowed was a misuse of schedule seven and breached his humanrights. In response the case is being taken to the high court.

Former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, who was involved in inducing the act, said the powers were intended to be used against individuals who are or might be terrorists.

The connection to Edward Snowden is that he is a former contractor at the US National Security Agency, leaked details of extensive Internet and phone surveillance by American intelligence services. According to the Guardian he passed “thousands of files” to Greenwald. Acting upon this new found information he has written several stories about surveillance by US and UK authorities.

An ITN report about the issue here:

Reporters interviewed both Greenwald and Miranda about being detained. Greenwald said the authorities “spent the entire day asking about the reporting I was doing and other Guardian journalist were doing on the NSA stories”, while Miranda said he was questioned about his “whole life”. Greenwald has accused the authorities of “bullying” and the intent of the situation was simply to “intimidate”. The Guardian and several senior UK politicians and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, have demanded a full explanation and believe also it was unnecessary and a breach of human rights. In response to the situation the home secretary Theresa May said it was right for the authorities to act if they believe someone has “highly sensitive stolen information”.

In, conclusion I personally believe that he should have been detained as if a person presents a risk of terrorism then it should be acted on immediately. However, I question the use of the full nine hours as he was only carrying journalistic material and surely that would have been discovered much sooner. Therefore, the breaching of David Miranda’s human rights does come into question.

This case is very helpful to a politics student as it provides proof that we should have a constitution, as it would set out basic human rights. This case can therefore be used as an example in a constitutional based essay that is arguing for a constitution as in this case David Miranda’s rights were tested.

[Editor's Note: You'll find a Q & A from the BBC here]