02:19
Tieng Anh Vui
The Supreme Court will rule later whether prisoners have the right to vote under European Union rules - even though they cannot under British law.
Two prisoners - one from England and the other from Scotland - say that EU law gives them a right to vote.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has already told the UK to end the blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Parliament is considering legislation, but hasn't yet decided what to do.
Analysis
Following a case in 2005 brought in the European Court of Human Rights by a British prisoner, it is now pretty well established that the UK's blanket ban on prisoners voting is in breach of European human rights law.
The government has accepted that, but human rights law allows a lengthy time period for responses to judgements, and any change to UK law is unlikely to happen any time soon.
The reason for that is that if such a challenge succeeds, it results in a "declaration of incompatibility" i.e. that the law in the state being challenged is incompatible with a human right under the European Convention on Human Rights. Governments are given time to respond, and that can be dragged out for many years - as it has been in the case of prisoner votes.
It is difficult to get governments to act on the judgements of the ECHR if they do not want to do so.
That is where today's ruling could be hugely significant. The two prisoners are bringing a fresh challenge under EU law. If they win, it would open up a much speedier European route resulting in the men being given the vote in local and European elections. Other prisoners would inevitably follow suit, and that would drive a coach and horses through Parliament's opposition to prisoner votes.
Convicted prisoners in the UK are banned from voting on the basis that they have forfeited that right by breaking the law and going to jail.
Successive governments have wanted to maintain that position but the ECHR said a blanket ban on prisoners voting was disproportionate.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will rule on two related cases in which prisoners say that separate European Union law and treaties trump the UK ban - meaning that inmates have a right to vote in local, European and potentially Scottish Parliamentary elections.
Peter Chester raped and strangled his niece in 1977 and was jailed for life for her murder. He has served his minimum term but the Parole Board has refused to release him because it says he is too dangerous.
In 2008, he tried to join the electoral role so that he could vote in the elections for the European Parliament. The Ministry of Justice said he could not until the law was changed.
In the second case, George McGeoch, serving life in a Scottish prison, argued that EU law allowed him to vote in local and European elections.
Although the ECHR has already told the UK to change the law, these two cases focus on whether prisoners as EU citizens have a right to vote even if Westminster says different.
Last year, the government conceded that it would have to change the law to allow some prisoners to vote.
Ministers have published a draft bill which is being considered by Parliament. The proposals include limiting the vote to inmates who are serving either less than six months or four years.
A further 2,352 inmates have tried to bring voting cases to the European Court of Human Rights. Those applications are adjourned while judges wait to see what Westminster does.
Đăng ký: Tieng Anh Vui
Posted in: 
0 comments:
Post a Comment