Europe: Voting ban on prisoners convicted of serious crimes is lawful, EU court rules | The Guardian

The European Union’s most senior court has ruled that it is lawful for countries such as Britain to impose a voting ban on prisoners convicted of serious crimes. The unexpected ruling by the European court of justice upholds a ban on a French convicted murderer who was serving a sentence of more than five years from taking part in the European elections. The European judges ruled that the ban on him voting did represent a breach of the EU charter of fundamental rights but that it was proportionate “in so far as it takes into account the nature and gravity of the criminal offence committed and the duration of the penalty”. The ruling, which has clear implications for Britain’s blanket ban on prisoner voting, went on: “The court concludes that it is possible to maintain a ban which, by operation of law, precludes persons convicted of a serious crime from voting in elections to the European parliament.”

Canada: Prisoners to vote this week in federal election | The Globe and Mail

When Rick Sauve visits prisoners these days, they have something new to discuss — the federal election. They pester him with questions: What are the polls saying? Who do you think is going to win? “It gives them something else to talk about,” says Sauve. “Because everyday’s like Groundhog Day. Everyday’s the same. “When this comes around, they pay attention.” Prisoners in all provincial jails and federal prisons get a chance to vote Friday — always 10 days before an election — in special advance polling stations set up in the institutions. This is the fifth federal election in which they have been allowed to cast ballots.

United Kingdom: David Cameron: I will ignore Europe’s top court on prisoner voting | Telegraph

David Cameron has vowed to ignore a European Court of Justice ruling expected this week that could outlaw Britain’s blanket ban on prisoner voting. In an explosive move on the eve of Mr Cameron’s conference speech, Europe’s highest court is on Tuesday predicted to rule that automatically stripping convicts of the vote is a violation of their human rights. It would be a defeat for the British government, whose lawyers argued it would be a major extension of the EU’s powers because voting arrangements a matter for national governments to decide.

United Kingdom: Jeremy Corbyn: Let prisoners have the right to vote | Telegraph

Jeremy Corbyn will consider campaigning to give prisoners the right to vote if he becomes Labour leader. The Labour leadership candidate said he would follow demands by the European Court of Human Rights to allow convicted criminals the right to vote in British elections. The court has ruled four times that Britain should lift its ban on prisoner votes but Parliament has refused to give way over the issue. The 66-year-old left-wing politician supports the principle of overturning the historic ban on jailed convicts voting because he thinks it will help rehabilitate them. MPs voted in 2011 to keep the ban on prisoner voting, despite the tough stance adopted by the European judges since 2005.

Editorials: Message on prisoner voting rights ‘unequivocal’ | Andrew Geddis/NZ Herald News

Because New Zealand has an unwritten, largely informal constitution, it can change in quite major ways without generating much fanfare. One such development took place last Friday with the delivery of the High Court’s judgment in Taylor v Attorney-General. This case involved a challenge by five prisoners to a 2010 law that prevents all sentenced prisoners from voting. (Before 2010, only prisoners sentenced to three or more years in jail were stopped from doing so.) After hearing this challenge, Justice Heath concluded that the 2010 law limits prisoners’ right to vote as guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and does so in a way that cannot be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That finding was no real surprise; the Attorney-General already had warned Parliament about the problem before the law was passed.

United Kingdom: Prisoners may be given vote because of human rights climbdown, Tory adviser warns | Telegraph

Prisoners in Britain may be given the vote because of David Cameron’s refusal to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights, a leading QC and adviser to the Conservative Party has warned. Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, has confirmed that pulling out of the convention is not “on the table” despite objections from both Theresa May, the Home Secretary, and Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary. Jonathan Fisher QC, who has advised the Conservatives on a British Bill of Rights to replace the Human Rights Act, said it means that when “push comes to shove” the party will have to give way to Strasbourg judges on prisoner voting.

United Kingdom: Prisoner vote ban: ‘can you put a value on the loss of this right?’ | The Guardian

“I was in prison on the day of an election. I posted a mocked-up ballot paper into the wing postbox. It was utterly pointless of course, but I was just looking to make a point,” an anonymous former inmate told the Guardian. Despite finding yet again that the UK continues to violate prisoners’ rights to participate in elections, the European court of human rights (ECHR) declined to order compensation to 1,015 UK prisoners on Tuesday. “I broadly agree with ECHR’s ruling: can you really ever put a monetary value on the loss of this human right? “It troubles me. You would hope that the fact it’s illegal would put pressure on the government to address it, but I feel the right wing are just using this to show how out of touch the European Court is,” he said.

United Kingdom: UK prisoner voting rights breached, European judges rule | BBC

The rights of UK prisoners were breached when they were prevented from voting in elections, European judges have again ruled. The case was brought by inmates who were in prison during various elections between 2009 and 2011. This is the fourth time the European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the UK’s blanket ban on giving convicted prisoners the vote. The court has called for a change in the law but this has not happened. Both the previous Labour government and current coalition have failed to legislate – although various proposals have been debated in an attempt to end the long-running row with the Strasbourg court. This latest case concerned 1,015 prisoners, a grouping of long-standing prisoner voting cases, and the court ruled there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – right to a free election.

United Kingdom: Judges to rule on prisoner voting | Press Association

European judges are set to rule on whether the rights of 1,015 serving prisoners in the UK were breached when they were prevented from voting in elections. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is due to announce its judgment regarding applications brought by people who were in jail throughout various elections between 2009 and 2011. The ruling will group together all of the long-standing prisoner voting cases against the UK that have been pending before the court. In August last year the ECHR ruled that the rights of 10 prisoners had been violated in relation to Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights – right to a free election. Judges said they reached the conclusion as the case was identical to another prisoner voting case in the UK, in which the blanket ban was deemed a breach.

New Zealand: No prisoner voting rights a ‘dangerous precedent’ | NZ Herald News

Not allowing prisoners to vote is being labelled a dangerous precedent, with claims it could be extended to other groups considered unfavourable. Prisoner Arthur Taylor is representing himself in the High Court at Auckland today, arguing Prime Minister John Key shouldn’t have been elected in Helensville, as Auckland Prison inmates were denied their right to vote. Taylor says a 2010 amendment to the law which stopped them voting is dangerous, as parliamentarians shouldn’t decide who can and can’t elect them. He said there was no telling who the amendment could be extended to, alleging refugees, beneficiaries, or those who earn less than $28,000 could all be on the list.

United Kingdom: UK prisoners denied the vote should not be paid compensation, ECHR rules | The Guardian

The European court of human rights (ECHR) has ruled that prisoners who have not been allowed to vote should not be paid compensation. However, in a ruling that will stoke anger within the Conservative party, the court on Tuesday upheld its earlier ruling that the prisoners’ human rights were breached when they were not allowed to vote. The case concerns 10 men serving sentences in Scottish prisons – some of whom are convicted sex offenders – who claimed their human rights were breached when they were not allowed to vote in the European elections in 2009. Had the court ruled that the men were entitled to compensation, the government would have had to make payouts in hundreds of similar cases. In its decision on Tuesday, the court unanimously said that its finding that the prisoners’ rights had been violated was sufficient. “The finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant,” it said.

United Kingdom: Prisoners Lose Voting Rights Compensation Bid | Sky News

A group of British prisoners have lost a compensation bid for being denied the right to vote. However, the European Court of Human Rights said in its ruling that denying them the vote was a breach of human rights. Ten prisoners took the case to the ECHR after being denied the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament on June 4, 2009. The court ruled that was a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – right to a free election.

United Kingdom: Strasbourg payout ruling due on jail vote ban | BBC

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is due to rule on whether prisoners who have been denied the vote should get compensation. The case concerns 10 men serving sentences in Scottish prisons who claim their human rights were breached when they were not allowed to vote. In 2004 the ECHR said that a blanket ban on prisoners voting was unlawful. But successive UK governments have not complied with this ruling. The claimants – some of whom are convicted sex offenders – argue that their human rights were breached after they were not allowed to take part in the 2009 European elections.

United Kingdom: Prison vote ban ‘breached rights’ | Wiltshire Business

Denying the vote to a group of prisoners was a breach of human rights, although no compensation or costs should be paid, European judges have ruled. The case before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) concerned 10 prisoners who were unable to vote in elections to the European Parliament on June 4 2009. The ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – right to a free election. Judges said they reached this conclusion as the case was identical to another prisoner voting case in the UK, in which the blanket ban was deemed a breach. The court rejected the applicants’ claim for compensation and legal costs.

United Kingdom: Conservatives clash over European court ruling on prisoner voting rights | The Guardian

The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, was accused by former justice minister Crispin Blunt of “setting up a crisis” over human rights in Europe when the two clashed in a Westminster committee over prisoners being allowed to vote. The public clash between two prominent Conservatives over enforcing the controversial ruling by Strasbourg judges that prisoners should be allowed to vote highlights mounting political tension within the party over the UK’s fraught relationship with Europe. In response to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision, first announced in 2005, that a blanket ban on inmates being allowed to participate in elections was illegal, the government has published a multiple choice bill with three options – one of which proposes retaining the ban and defying Strasbourg. Earlier this month, Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary-general of the Council of Europe, which oversees the ECHR, warned that if the UK, a founder member of the human rights system, refused to enforce the judgment it would weaken and deprive it of any meaning.

Editorials: Britain must give prisoners the vote – and fast | Telegraph

So here we are, embroiled in a mess of Parliament’s own devising. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly ruled that a blanket ban on prisoner voting is incompatible with European law. The UK Parliament has repeatedly flouted that edict. Now, more quickly than expected, the court has announced that it is reopening the 2281 cases involving British prisoners, despite previously saying it would put them on hold. Premature and disrespectful, say some Tory MPs. Maybe. But hell could freeze over before our legislature would willingly hand the vote to a single inmate of Her Majesty’s jails. Leave aside for now the argument that loss of freedom should automatically mean loss of franchise, and look at the practical consequences.

United Kingdom: Defying Strasbourg ruling on prisoner voting rights risks anarchy, MPs told | The Guardian

The government’s chief law officer has given his strongest warning yet to MPs that refusing to comply with European human rights rulings on prisoner voting rights risks “a degree of anarchy”. The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, said the issue of giving convicted prisoners the vote was profoundly symbolic in the British debate on European human rights laws, but that it was no slight matter for Britain to be in breach of its international obligations. He made his remarks during a Westminster hearing of a joint committee of MPs and peers who were considering a draft prisoner voting bill. The meeting also heard a strong warning from Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary-general of the Council of Europe, which oversees the European human rights court at Strasbourg.

United Kingdom: Human rights commissioner says UK ‘should leave Council of Europe’ if it defies ruling on prisoner voting rights | theguardian.com

The UK should withdraw from the Council of Europe if it chooses to ignore pan-Europe judgments giving prisoners the right to vote, the continent’s most senior human rights official has warned. Niels Muižnieks, the Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner, said British MPs could not “cherry-pick” decisions issued by the European court of human rights. His comments, published in evidence to the joint Commons and Lords parliamentary committee considering the draft voting eligibility (prisoners) bill, are likely to raise the political stakes in an already inflamed confrontation that has set British ministers at odds with the Strasbourg-based European court of human rights. The court first ruled in 2005 that a blanket ban preventing all prisoners from voting in elections was incompatible with human rights.

United Kingdom: Prisoners’ right-to-vote appeal rejected by supreme court | theguardian.com

Two convicted murderers who argued that European Union law gave them the right to vote in UK elections have had their appeals dismissed by the supreme court at Westminster. Peter Chester, who is serving a life sentence in England, and George McGeoch, who is behind bars in Scotland, both tried to sidestep British legislation over prisoner voting rights, the European court of human of rights in Strasbourg having in the past ruled illegal Britain’s voting ban for all those serving any sentence. A parliamentary committee is considering whether to enforce the rulings or defy the European judges. The supreme court justices observed that since Strasbourg had already declared the blanket ban on prisoners voting incompatible with human rights, there was no point in repeating it. David Cameron welcomed the unanimous supreme court decision. The prime minister tweeted: “The supreme court judgment on prisoner voting is a great victory for common sense.”

United Kingdom: Eight-year standoff over prisoner voting rights approaches resolution | theguardian.com

The United Kingdom’s standoff with the European court of human rights (ECHR) over prisoner voting is approaching a final resolution after eight years of political and legal controversy. The Strasbourg court first ruled in 2005 that a blanket ban preventing all prisoners from voting in elections was incompatible with human rights. That opinion has been unsuccessfully challenged in the upper appeals chamber of the ECHR several times, most recently by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve QC, when he supported an Italian case arguing an identical principle.

United Kingdom: Prisoner Disenfranchisement as a Sovereign Issue: Britain’s Conundrum | The International

After a final ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, the UK government is believed to be planning a draft bill that will introduce limited voting rights for prisoners despite widespread opposition to the move in the legislature. The announcement of the draft bill is expected to be deferred until just before a late November deadline but after the November 17 election for police commissioner. All judgements made by the European Court of Human Rights are binding and member states are expected to abide by their judgements or face penalty, usually monetary. If Britain fails to change their prisoner voting laws, they could face a fine amounting up to £150 million.

United Kingdom: Tories bow to European court of human rights over prisoner voting rights | The Guardian

The government is planning a draft bill introducing limited prisoner voting rights to comply with the European court of human rights, despite fierce opposition from Eurosceptic backbenchers. But embarrassed government ministers are likely to defer the hugely controversial announcement until just before a late-November deadline, allowing it to be made after the police commissioner elections on 17 November.

Editorials: Prisoner voting rights: David Cameron’s chance to deliver for Britain | Daily Mail

With a single word yesterday, David Cameron seized an opportunity that could work wonders to restore his battered fortunes. That word was: ‘Yes.’ He had been asked if he would give an undertaking not to succumb to the diktat from the European Court of Human Rights, demanding that prisoners should be given the right to vote. Further, would he stand up for the sovereignty of Parliament and the British people by upholding the huge Commons vote in support of the blanket ban?

United Kingdom: UK can decide which prisoners vote, says European Court | BBC

The European Court of Human Rights has said individual governments can decide how to implement a ban on convicted prisoners voting. The judgement means the UK will be able to decide for itself how to resolve the long-standing row over votes for inmates. But the court says the UK only has six months to outline its proposed reforms. In a landmark judgment the court found that an Italian prisoner’s rights had not been breached.