Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)
The UK's blanket ban on voting by convicted prisoners breached the right to free elections under the Convention.
Facts
Under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, all convicted prisoners serving a sentence of imprisonment were banned from voting in elections, regardless of the length of their sentence or the nature of their offence. John Hirst, serving a life sentence for manslaughter, challenged the ban. The Divisional Court dismissed his claim, and he applied to the European Court of Human Rights.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held, by twelve votes to five, that the blanket ban breached article 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, which guarantees the right to free elections. States have a wide margin of appreciation in deciding which prisoners may vote, but the UK's ban applied automatically to all convicted prisoners, irrespective of the length of their sentence, the nature or gravity of their offence and their individual circumstances, and Parliament had never weighed the competing interests or assessed the proportionality of the ban. Such a general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction fell outside any acceptable margin of appreciation. The judgment led to a long political dispute in the UK. In 2017 the government made limited administrative changes, which the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe accepted in 2018.
Related cases on Human Rights Act 1998
- A v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56, [2005] 2 AC 68
- Aston Cantlow and Wilmcote with Billesley Parochial Church Council v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, [2004] 1 AC 546
- Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21, [2003] 2 AC 467
- Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 AC 557
- Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 AC 104
- R (AB) v Secretary of State for Justice [2021] UKSC 28
- R (Al-Skeini) v Secretary of State for Defence [2007] UKHL 26, [2008] 1 AC 153
- R (Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15, [2007] 1 AC 100
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
