header-logo header-logo

24 October 2013
Issue: 7581 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Prisoner vote

Supreme Court dismisses appeals of prisoners who wish to vote

The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed two appeals from prisoners seeking voting rights. 

In R (on the application of Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice; McGeoch v The Lord President of the Council [2013] UKSC 63, both appellants were prisoners serving life sentences for murder. 

Seven justices held that the Supreme Court is required to “take into account” decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), not necessarily to follow them. The ban is not a fundamental principle of UK law so the circumstances do not warrant a departure from Convention caselaw. However,  they said this issue is being considered by Parliament so there would be no point in a further declaration of incompatibility. 

The ECtHR previously ruled the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners voting to be incompatible with Convention rights, in Hirst (No 2) v UK [2005] ECHR 681.

 

Issue: 7581 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

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