Skip to main content

Prisoner Votes and the European Court of Human Rights

The issue of which prisoners should be allowed to vote was discussed in the House of Commons yesterday.

There are some points that have been missed from the debate:

Firstly, the European Court Judgment that said that there should be some consideration of a change in the law did not pay any compensation to the person complaining.

Secondly, the judgment also said that one reason why they felt that things were wrong was that parliament had not looked at the issue. Well parliament now has.

I don't think that the issue is finished with, however. It may be that people who have been imprisoned for less than 2 years are permitted to apply to court to get a vote if their offence did not involve abusing the human rights of anyone else.

Noone, however, is suggesting that there will be any proposal for serious offenders to get the vote. The front benches of all parties abstained from this vote.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Six months for recording a court hearing - Norman Scarth

The link is in Russian about the imprisonment of Norman Scarth who is actually 85. He has a complex history including a court hearing which found that he used a chainsaw to fight off bailiffs when he was 75. [a court judgment which is disputed see comments] However, that does not justify imprisoning him for 6 months for recording a court hearing (see the link and ask google to translate it if your Russian is not up to it). It has got into the Argyll News Because he has been held such that people cannot get to him to sign paperwork an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made today. This has been adjourned until next week. The English judicial system is really not good at responding to major abuses of human rights by the judicial system.