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’The UK’s outdated ban on sentenced prisoners voting, based on the 19th century concept of civic death, has no place in a modern democracy and is legally and morally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