Skip to main content

Category: Voting

Taking responsibility behind bars

Enabling people in prison to take responsibility for day to day life behind bars encourages a greater sense of autonomy and self-respect and contributes to better decision making by prison managers, according to a new report published today (1 December) by the Prison Reform Trust.
 
The report outlines the findings of PRT’s innovative active citizens programme, launched in 2015 with the kind support of the Milo & Violet Cripps Charitable Trust. Additional support from the Bromley Trust and the  Sir James Reckitt Charity will allow PRT to take the programme to more prisons in the coming year.
 
PRT ran active citizens forums in ten prisons, working with groups of prisoners to study a specific problem and propose solutions for the governor to consider. Eight to 12 prisoners were recruited to each forum.  Each forum met four times, building up a picture of the problem and its causes. They looked at what the prison is currently doing to address the problem. And finally, the group agreed on what the prison should do to tackle it. On behalf of the forum, PRT submitted a report, with recommendations, to the governor.
 
The forums tackled topics such as preventing fights, keeping the environment clean, treating prisoners as adults, and preparing for release. The forums allowed governors to see problems from the prisoners’ point of view. For example, if prices increase at the prison shop (canteen) but wages stay the same, disputes will arise and violence may increase.
 
Each forum is a creative process that belongs to the residents. Members determine the ground rules for working together, freely discuss the problem and its causes, and come up with their own solutions. The structure is adaptable. For example, one group was drawn from a single wing; another met on four consecutive days; and one conducted a survey to gather evidence about the topic. No one knew ahead of time what each group would propose; they were free to decide on what to recommend.
 
As forums started to think of solutions, the members felt more comfortable taking some responsibility for improving the prison. Just making recommendations was an act of trust that their suggestions would be taken seriously. The approach also worked well at providing senior managers with a residents’ analysis of a specific theme or concern.
 
Commenting, Dr Kimmett Edgar, Head of Research at the Prison Reform Trust, said:
 
“PRT’s active citizen forums enable members to take responsibility for their prison community in a new way. We hope that as we develop the method, the forums can become still more effective at targeting improvements to prisons.”

Dr Edgar has also written about the report’s findings in Inside Time, the national prison newspaper. You can read his piece by clicking here.

Blog: The UK should encourage prisoners to be good citizens and let them vote

Last week’s ruling by the European Court of Human Rights on prisoners’ voting reinforces previous judgments of the Court that the UK’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting is unlawful.

But with three months to go before the UK general election, it’s clear that the government would rather flout human rights law, ignore the advice of prison governors, bishops to, and inspectors of, prisons and take up Parliamentary time and taxpayers’ money in order to stop sentenced prisoners from acting responsibly by voting in democratic elections.

For ten years now successive UK governments have wasted public money resisting the European Court’s judgment. The current Prime Minister has even admitted to feeling “physically ill to even contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison”.(opens youtube)

 Even the modest proposals for reform made by the cross-party committee set up by the government to consider the draft bill on prisoners voting have fallen on deaf ears. It recommended that those serving prison sentences of 12 months or less should maintain their voting rights and others serving longer sentences should have these re-instated six months before release.

Since the committee’s report in January 2014, there have been local and European elections in May 2014 and a referendum on Scottish independence in September 2014, all held without any moves by the government to overturn the ban. The May 2015 general election looks set to go ahead with the blanket ban still in place.

The repeated and unnecessary delay to the execution of the Hirst v UK judgement, originally made in 2004 and upheld on appeal in 2005, should be a source of shame to successive governments.  Since then, tens of thousands of people in prison have been denied the right to vote in local, national and European elections.

People are sent to prison to lose their liberty; not their identity. Prisoners are still people, albeit people behind bars. The nineteenth century punishment of civic death makes no sense in a twenty first century prison system whose focus is on rehabilitation, resettlement and the prevention of re-offending. Arguably, in the interests of proportionality in sentencing, you could retain loss of voting rights as a punishment for the crime of electoral fraud.

The UK is out of step with all but seven Council of Europe countries, as well as many developed states around the world, when it comes to prisoners voting. In South Africa, all prisoners have the right to vote. Handing down a landmark ruling in April 1999, the constitutional court of South Africa declared: “The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood.” Quite literally, it says that everybody counts.

Practically, there would be few difficulties in expanding the arrangements already in place enabling remand prisoners to vote to the rest of the sentenced prison population. The Electoral Commission has set out a mechanism by which prisoners could be enfranchised though a system of postal or proxy voting. Through its own audit procedures, the Ministry of Justice has been systematically seeking prisoners’ level of interest in voting and is known to have received positive responses.

The resistance the judgment has provoked in the UK is out of all proportion and at odds with the compelling legal, moral and practical arguments for overturning the ban. Politicians should feel sick about sky high reconviction rates; not about enabling prisoners to be good citizens.

 

This article was first published in OurKingdom on OpenDemocracy.net
You can read the article and comment on it here


Prisoner voting: common sense and a cross-party majority prevail

Commenting on the announcement by the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill Committee, Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust said:

“The European Court of Human Rights, the Attorney General, and now the Bill Committee have all declared that the automatic and indiscriminate ban on all convicted prisoners voting is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Today’s announcement marks an important step forward in a dispiriting process that has dragged on for over eight years.

“Most people accept that it is important to make the punishment fit the crime so it is only regrettable that the Committee has recommended retaining an automatic ban for prisoners serving sentences of more than 12 months, regardless of their particular offence, rather than extend the franchise further with certain exceptions, for example in cases of electoral fraud.

“The repeated and unnecessary delay to the execution of the Hirst v UK 2005 judgement should be a source of shame to successive governments. Since then, tens of thousands of people in prison have been denied the right to vote in local, national and European elections. The UK government has flouted human rights law, faced substantial financial penalties, ignored the advice of prison governors, bishops to, and inspectors of, prisons and taken up Parliamentary time and taxpayers’ money in order to stop sentenced prisoners from acting responsibly by voting in democratic elections.

“People are sent to prison to lose their liberty; not their identity. The nineteenth century punishment of civic death makes no sense in a twenty first century prison system whose focus is on rehabilitation, resettlement and the prevention of reoffending.”

“The Bill Committee has taken substantive evidence and come to a considered cross-party view to overturn this outdated and uncivilised ban.With local and European elections due in England and Wales in May 2014, a referendum on Scottish independence in September 2014, and a general election in the UK in May 2015, the government should accept the Committee’s recommendation and introduce legislation as a matter of urgency to ensure that prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less can act responsibly and vote at last.”

Notes

 

1. Following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst vs. UK in 2005, it has been repeatedly highlighted that the automatic and indiscriminate ban on all convicted offenders, barring those on remand or in custody on default, does not comply with Article 3 Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights 1950. Despite that judgment, which called for the UK to amend its position according to the convention, successive governments have delayed taking action to implement reform.

2. The only other adult UK citizens who cannot vote in general elections are hereditary peers who are members of the House of Lords, life peers, patients detained in psychiatric hospitals as a result of their crimes, and those who have been convicted of corrupt or illegal electoral practices in the previous five years. Remand prisoners, people held in contempt of court and fine defaulters held in prison are all eligible to vote.

3. The UK is out of step with all but seven Council of Europe countries, as well as many developed states around the world, when it comes to prisoners voting. In South Africa, all prisoners have the right to vote. Handing down a landmark ruling in April 1999, the constitutional court of South Africa declared: “The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts.Practically, there would be few difficulties in expanding the arrangements already in place enabling remand prisoners to vote to the rest of the sentenced prison population. The Electoral Commission has set out a mechanism by which prisoners could be enfranchised though a system of postal or proxy voting. Through its own audit procedures, the Ministry of Justice has been systematically seeking prisoners’ level of interest in voting and is known to have received positive responses.

4. Practically, there would be few difficulties in expanding the arrangements already in place enabling remand prisoners to vote to the rest of the sentenced prison population. The Electoral Commission has set out a mechanism by which prisoners could be enfranchised though a system of postal or proxy voting. Through its own audit procedures, the Ministry of Justice has been systematically seeking prisoners’ level of interest in voting and is known to have received positive responses.

5. Our submission to the Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill Committee is available by clicking here.

6. The briefing Barred From Voting: The Right to Vote for Sentenced Prisoners, supported by the Aire Centre, Criminal Justice Alliance, JUSTICE, Liberty, Penal Reform International, Prison Reform Trust and UNLOCK, the National Association of Reformed Offenders, is available to download here.

Prisoners voting – Scoppola case judgment

On Tuesday 22 May the European Court of Human Rights published their judgment in the case of Scoppola v. Italy (no 3). The Court has confirmed the Hirst (no. 2) v. the United Kingdom judgment of October 2005 that a blanket ban on all serving prisoners losing voting rights is a breach of their human rights. 

The Court accepted the UK government’s argument that each state has a wide discretion as to how it regulates the ban, both as regards the types of offence that should result in the loss of the vote and as to whether disenfranchisement should be ordered by a judge in an individual case or should result from general application of a law. 

The Court has given the UK government six months from the date of this judgment to put matters right without further delay.

Commenting on the judgment, Prison Reform Trust director Juliet Lyon said:

‘People are sent to prison to lose their liberty, not their identity.

‘The UK’s outdated ban on sentenced prisoners voting, based on the 19th century concept of civic death, has no place in a modern democracy and is legally and morally unsustainable. 

‘Experienced prison governors and officials, past and present bishops to prisons and chief inspectors, electoral commissioners, legal and constitutional experts and most other European governments believe people in prison should be able to exercise their civic responsibility.

‘The European Court has made clear in today’s judgment the UK’s legal obligations to overturn the blanket ban.’

Read selected press coverage of this story here:

The Telegraph

The Daily Express

Daily Mirror

Prison Reform Trust’s comments were quoted in the full printed articles in the Guardian and The Independent, you can read the online articles here:

The Independent

the Guardian

MPs should not flout law on prisoners’ votes

The European court of human rights ruled in 2005 that the blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting is unlawful. Since then the UK government has remained in breach of its legal obligations. With six months to comply following the Scoppola judgment on 22 May this year, we understand that the government will introduce draft legislation on prisoners voting for debate in the House of Commons today, 22 November.

We ask MPs to consider if they are prepared to continue to flout international law, face substantial financial penalties, and millions in mounting compensation claims, and ignore the advice of the attorney general in order to stop prisoners from acting responsibly by voting in democratic elections.

Almost all of our European neighbours allow prisoners to vote – to pay their debt to society while remaining a part of it. Our outdated approach, enshrined in the Forfeiture Act 1870, to strip prisoners of their voting rights does the opposite. A 19th-century penalty condemning people to “civic death” makes no sense in a 21st-century prison system whose focus is on rehabilitation, resettlement and the prevention of reoffending.

The message that we can pick and choose which laws we obey is a poor one, for people in prison and for society as a whole. We hope parliament will now use its discretion and support sensible measures to start to comply with, and implement, the judgment. 
Juliet Lyon Director, Prison Reform Trust, Shami Chakrabarti Director, Liberty, Rt Rev James Jones Bishop of Liverpool and bishop to Her Majesty’s prisons, David Ramsbotham House of Lords, Vicki Helyar-Cardwell Director, Criminal Justice Alliance, Nuala Mole Senior lawyer, The AIRE Centre, Chris Bath Executive director, Unlock – the National Association of Reformed Offenders, Michael Bartlet Parliamentary liaison secretary, Quakers in Britain, Dr Peter Selby President, National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards, Alison Hannah Executive director, Penal Reform International

Thomas Hammarberg: Prisoners should have the vote

Thomas Hammarberg, the Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe, has underlined the position of the European Court of Human Rights that there should be no blanket ban on prisoners voting. His intervention follows the UK authorities’ decision to complain against a recent ruling by the European Court which established a legislative timetable for overturning the ban. “Prisoners, though deprived of physical liberty, have human rights,” says Hammarberg in an article published on the Council of Europe website. “Measures should be taken to ensure that imprisonment does not undermine rights which are unconnected to the intention of the punishment.” Read a full copy of the article here.

Prisoners should get the vote

Before the debate on prisoners voting, the Prison Reform Trust was contacted by a wide range of people, many of whom work in the prison system. While politicians were being subjected to a self-styled whip by a few members of the unelected populist press, many of the emails we received were from prison governors or staff who see prisoners voting as a normal part of resettlement and citizenship.

One correspondent said: “As someone working in prison education I am appalled at the attitude shown by some MPs towards votes for prisoners. I have felt for a long time that rehabilitation is merely a buzz word and reality is that most MPs regard prison as a place to punish. Education is not given the status it should, nor is any other service which would reduce re-offending.”

The past president of the Prison Governors’ Association said: “The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners’ voting is out of step in a modern prison service and runs counter to resettlement work which aims to ensure that prisoners lead a responsible, law-abiding life on release.”

Unfortunately these voices were not reflected in a debate too often characterised by more heat than light. In all conscience, MPs had the opportunity to stand up for the fundamental human rights and dignity of everyone, obey the law and encourage the exercise of civic responsibility. A few made powerful speeches in defence of these principles. However, in a free vote, 234 MPs chose to hang on to the nineteenth century punishment of civic death enshrined in the 1870 Forfeiture Act. Twenty two MPs voted against the motion.

Although the vote is not legally binding on the government, the message it sends to prisoners and people working in the prison service is a poor one. The outdated ban on prisoners voting has no place in a modern prison system, which is about rehabilitation and respect for the rule of law.

There are strong legal, moral and practical reasons to enable people in prison to vote. The 2004 judgment of the European Court, which the UK government appealed and lost in 2005, clearly states that the blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting is unlawful. The judgment is legally binding on the government and, as the attorney general Dominic Grieve acknowledged clearly in the debate, it will have to comply. Subsequent cases have indicated that the government’s margin of appreciation for complying with the initial judgment is not wide.

The committee of ministers at the Council of Europe oversees the execution of European Court judgments by member states. Christos Pourgourides, chair of the Council of Europe’s parliamentary committee on legal affairs and human rights, said in a statement released after the Commons’ debate: “The UK government has said that it intends to implement this judgment, and I encourage it to find a way to do so that is consistent with its international legal obligations. There are different ways this can be done, as shown by the range of positions on this issue in Council of Europe member states.”

Morally, by establishing the right to vote we are recognising that people sent to custody must lose their liberty, but not their identity. The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams spoke of the importance of regarding prisoners as citizens at a recent meeting of the all party parliamentary penal affairs group. He said: “The notion that in some sense, not the civic liberties but the civic status of a prisoner is in cold storage when custody takes over is one of the roots of a whole range of issues around the rights of prisoners.”

We are out of step with all but a handful of Council of Europe countries, as well as many developed states around the world, when it comes to prisoners voting. In South Africa, all prisoners have the right to vote. Handing down a landmark ruling in April 1999, the constitutional court of South Africa declared: “The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts.”

Practically, there would be few difficulties in expanding the arrangements already in place to enable remand prisoners to vote to the rest of the sentenced prison population. The electoral commission set out, in its response to the Ministry of Justice’s second consultation on prisoners voting in 2009, a mechanism by which prisoners could be enfranchised though a system of postal or proxy voting. Through its own audit procedures the Ministry of Justice has been systematically seeking prisoners’ level of interest in voting and is known to have received positive responses.

The outcome of the parliamentary debate does not change the overwhelming case for reform. The blanket ban is out of place in a modern prison system and should be overturned without further delay.

This article first appeared on www.politics.co.uk

Prisoners should get the vote

 

One correspondent said: “As someone working in prison education I am appalled at the attitude shown by some MPs towards votes for prisoners. I have felt for a long time that rehabilitation is merely a buzz word and reality is that most MPs regard prison as a place to punish. Education is not given the status it should, nor is any other service which would reduce re-offending.”

The past president of the Prison Governors’ Association said: “The blanket ban on sentenced prisoners’ voting is out of step in a modern prison service and runs counter to resettlement work which aims to ensure that prisoners lead a responsible, law-abiding life on release.”

Unfortunately these voices were not reflected in a debate too often characterised by more heat than light. In all conscience, MPs had the opportunity to stand up for the fundamental human rights and dignity of everyone, obey the law and encourage the exercise of civic responsibility. A few made powerful speeches in defence of these principles. However, in a free vote, 234 MPs chose to hang on to the nineteenth century punishment of civic death enshrined in the 1870 Forfeiture Act. Twenty two MPs voted against the motion.

Although the vote is not legally binding on the government, the message it sends to prisoners and people working in the prison service is a poor one. The outdated ban on prisoners voting has no place in a modern prison system, which is about rehabilitation and respect for the rule of law.

There are strong legal, moral and practical reasons to enable people in prison to vote. The 2004 judgment of the European Court, which the UK government appealed and lost in 2005, clearly states that the blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting is unlawful. The judgment is legally binding on the government and, as the attorney general Dominic Grieve acknowledged clearly in the debate, it will have to comply. Subsequent cases have indicated that the government’s margin of appreciation for complying with the initial judgment is not wide.

The committee of ministers at the Council of Europe oversees the execution of European Court judgments by member states. Christos Pourgourides, chair of the Council of Europe’s parliamentary committee on legal affairs and human rights, said in a statement released after the Commons’ debate: “The UK government has said that it intends to implement this judgment, and I encourage it to find a way to do so that is consistent with its international legal obligations. There are different ways this can be done, as shown by the range of positions on this issue in Council of Europe member states.”

Morally, by establishing the right to vote we are recognising that people sent to custody must lose their liberty, but not their identity. The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams spoke of the importance of regarding prisoners as citizens at a recent meeting of the all party parliamentary penal affairs group. He said: “The notion that in some sense, not the civic liberties but the civic status of a prisoner is in cold storage when custody takes over is one of the roots of a whole range of issues around the rights of prisoners.”

We are out of step with all but a handful of Council of Europe countries, as well as many developed states around the world, when it comes to prisoners voting. In South Africa, all prisoners have the right to vote. Handing down a landmark ruling in April 1999, the constitutional court of South Africa declared: “The universality of the franchise is important not only for nationhood and democracy. The vote of each and every citizen is a badge of dignity and personhood. Quite literally, it says that everybody counts.”

Practically, there would be few difficulties in expanding the arrangements already in place to enable remand prisoners to vote to the rest of the sentenced prison population. The electoral commission set out, in its response to the Ministry of Justice’s second consultation on prisoners voting in 2009, a mechanism by which prisoners could be enfranchised though a system of postal or proxy voting. Through its own audit procedures the Ministry of Justice has been systematically seeking prisoners’ level of interest in voting and is known to have received positive responses.

The outcome of the parliamentary debate does not change the overwhelming case for reform. The blanket ban is out of place in a modern prison system and should be overturned without further delay.

This article first appeared on www.politics.co.uk

People in prison are citizens, says Archbishop ahead of prisoners voting debate

People in prison are citizens, says Archbishop ahead of prisoner voting rights debate

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has spoken of the importance of regarding people in prison as citizens ahead of a debate and vote in Parliament tomorrow (Thursday 10 February) to retain the UK’s blanket ban on sentenced prisoners voting.

The notion that in some sense, not the civic liberties but the civic status of a prisoner is in cold storage when custody takes over is one of the roots of a whole range of issues around the rights of prisoners,

he told a recent meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group in the House of Commons.

If we lose sight of the notion of the prisoner as citizen, any number of things follow from that, and indeed are following from that.

The prisoner as citizen is somebody who can on the one hand expect their dignity as a citizen to be factored into what happens to them, and can reasonably expect that penal custody will be something that contributes to, rather than takes away, their capacity to act as a citizen in other circumstances. Thus issues around restoration, around responsibility, around developing concepts of empathy and mutuality are all part of what seems to me to be a reasonable working out of what it is to regard the prisoner as a citizen.

The blanket ban is in place despite a 2004 European Court judgment which declared it unlawful. In a briefing sent to MPs ahead of Thursday’s debate, the Aire Centre, Criminal Justice Alliance, JUSTICE, Liberty, Penal Reform International, Prison Reform Trust and UNLOCK, the National Association of Reformed Offenders, warn that failure to overturn the ban before elections in May will result in mounting compensation claims and the “unnecessary and avoidable waste of UK taxpayers’ money”. They “urge the government and Parliament to now put aside delaying tactics, respect the judgment of the Court and overturn the outdated ban on prisoners voting.”

The government has acknowledged that the UK needs to move towards compliance with the European Court judgment and at least some sentenced prisoners will be allowed to vote. However, without urgent action, elections in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and in local constituencies due to be held in May 2011 will not be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. The 2010 general election was held in breach of the European Convention and over 70,000 people were unlawfully disenfranchised. This has resulted in more than 2,500 compensation claims so far being lodged with the European Court.

The former Lord Chancellor, Lord MacKay, has criticised the UK’s failure to comply with the judgment. In evidence to the House of Common’s Parliamentary and Constitutional Reform Committee on 1 February, he said:

The [European] Convention … was initiated … to deal with the … terrible persecution of minorities in Germany … If we believe in the rule of law, we are just as much bound to observe the decisions of the European Court on matters within their competence as we are to obey the decisions of our own courts in matters within their competence.

Dr Peter Selby, former Bishop to HM Prisons and now President of the National Council for Independent Monitoring Boards for Prisons has stated that:

Denying convicted prisoners the right to vote serves no purpose of deterrence or reform. What it does is to state in the clearest terms society’s belief that once convicted you are a non-person, one who should have no say in how our society is to develop, whose opinion is to count for nothing. It is making someone an “outlaw”, and as such has no place in expressing a civilised attitude towards those in prison.

The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales also support the view that prisoners should have the right to vote. Their report, A Place of Redemption, states that: “Prison regimes should treat prisoners less as objects, done to by others, and more as subjects who can become authors of their own reform and redemption. In that spirit, the right to vote should be restored to sentenced prisoners.”

Commenting, Juliet Lyon, Director of the Prison Reform Trust, said:

In all conscience surely MPs should stand up for the fundamental human rights and dignity of everyone, obey the law and encourage the exercise of civic responsibility. Hanging on to a nineteenth century punishment of civic death is morally and legally wrong. The outdated ban on prisoners voting has no place in a modern prison system, which is about rehabilitation and respect for the rule of law.

Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, said:

A victim of a crime may feel understandable revulsion if a convicted prisoner re-builds any kind of life but this re-building can prevent future crime. Depriving some people of their liberty is vital for public protection but depriving all prisoners of the vote is as petty and counter-productive as depriving them of books or communication with their families. The truth is that Britain is better than that. Our politicians won’t teach criminals to obey our laws by breaching international law themselves.

 

Notes

1.   The Archbishop’s address to the APPG (All-Party Parliamentary Group) on Penal Affairs, at the House of Commons in London on 18 January 2011, is available to download here.

2.   The briefing Barred From Voting: The Right to Vote for Sentenced Prisoners, supported by the Aire Centre, Criminal Justice Alliance, JUSTICE, Liberty, Penal Reform International, Prison Reform Trust and UNLOCK, the National Association of Reformed Offenders, is available to download here.

3.   The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee will publish its report, Voting by convicted prisoners: summary of evidence at 11.00 hrs on Wednesday 9 February 2011.Copies will be available on the Committee’s website: www.parliament.uk/pcrc <http://bit.ly/pcrcvpr>

Prisoners serving less than four years to get vote

Commenting on the government’s proposals for all offenders sentenced to four years or more to be automatically barred from registering to vote, Juliet Lyon said:

Enfranchising prisoners serving sentences of under four years is an important step in the right direction.  However, it does not appear to meet the requirements of European Court judgments which state that the vast majority of prisoners should be able to vote.

The government confirmed the new proposals on Friday 17 December 2010. All offenders sentenced to four years or more will automatically be barred from registering to vote. Prisoners sentenced to less than four years will retain the right to vote, unless the sentencing judge removes it. 

Constitutional Reform Minister Mark Harper said:

The government has brought these proposals forward as a result of a court ruling which it is obliged to implement. This is not a choice, it is a legal obligation. We are ensuring the most serious offenders will continue to be barred from voting.

If the government failed to implement this judgement, we would not only be in breach of our international obligations but could be risking taxpayers’ money in paying out compensation claims.

The right to vote will be restricted to Westminster Parliamentary elections and European Parliament elections only. If a prisoner is allowed to keep their right to vote, they would do so either by post or proxy. Prisoners will not be registered at the prison, but at their former address or an area where they have a local connection.

A bar on serving prisoners voting was put in place in 1870. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in the case of John Hirst that the existing ban on prisoners being able to vote was contrary to Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the right to free and fair elections. 

Read more here

Selected press coverage
Prisoners serving less than four years to get vote

Andrew Woodcock PA, The Independent, 17 December 2010

Court ruling gives prisoners voting rights

Isabel Coles, Reuters, 17 December 2010