header-logo header-logo

16 January 2015
Issue: 7636 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Elections

Moohan and another v Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67, [2014] All ER (D) 186 (Dec)

The proceedings concerned whether the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013’s blanket disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners, in relation to the Scottish independence referendum, was ultra vires the Scottish Parliament. The Supreme Court held, inter alia, that the claimants’ claim under Art 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (A3P1) failed. The requirement in A3P1, that elections were held “at reasonable intervals”, suggested that the drafters had not had referendums in mind. The words in their ordinary meaning had not supported a wider view that it had been intended to cover any major political decision which was put to a popular vote, however important that decision might be.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll