Monday, December 03, 2012

Prisoners' Votes Again


Today's Daily Mail carries a piece about the latest tinkering with sentencing that goes on to say


Mr Grayling also revealed he may be forced to support a contentious European ruling to give prisoners the vote when the issue comes before the Commons.
He said he was in a tricky position because, as Lord Chancellor, he is duty-bound to uphold the law.
So indeed he is. So are we all. So are Members of Parliament, but you wouldn't believe it from what some of them are saying at the moment.  
By the way, the piece is bylined 'Gerri Peeve'. What a perfect name for a Mail journalist!

34 comments:

  1. Surely he can find what will pass as a legal way round it, if he wants to ? All it needs to be is something that can be argued as not being a blanket ban.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Allow MPs banged up for expenses fraud the vote.
      1) No blanket ban, so the European Court will be happy.
      2) MPs will happily support it.
      3) Few if any prisoners get the vote.
      Result!

      Delete
    2. I take it you mean allowing the vote to all prisoners sentenced to less than 1 week, or something like that?

      Delete
  2. The ruling was that there cannot be a total ban on all prisoners voting. That's quite a different thing from ruling that all prisoners must be allowed to vote, though of course one wouldn't know that from the Mail's reporting. (I assume that it is a genuine quote from the Mail, but am not sure, as no-one is reported as expressing "fury" and the value of Mr Grayling's house is missing.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Would it be sufficient compliance to say that prisoners who were on an electoral roll at the time of their arrest may stay on the roll for that constituency until their release?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Provided they retained the right to vote (by post or proxy), yes.

      Delete
  4. Does it matter very much?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon at 17:34 It could cost the UK an estimated £75m in compensation, and all for a failure to make minimal changes to remove the blanket nature of the ban, a principle which we have accepted is contrary to the Convention in a whole series of other areas.
    From Me 2 EU

    ReplyDelete
  6. Members of a sovereign parliament are not bound to uphold any laws when voting in that parliament. Voting in parliament is about making laws, not following them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Members may not be, but ministers most definitely are, as is made quite clear in the Ministerial Code. This, and the oath he swore on taking office, bind Mr Grayling, just as the Code requires all Ministers to uphold the law and the international commitments, conventions and treaties the country has entered into.
    From Me 2 EU

    ReplyDelete
  8. Actually, the official oath for Secretaries of State is simply:

    I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office). So help me God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, Tony, s1.2 of the Ministerial Code recalls "the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations" (as indeed to uphold the administration of justice).
      From Me 2 EU

      Delete
  9. I believe that the oath is:-

    “I,     , do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible.     So help me God.”.”

    Source s17 Constitutional Reform Act 2005

    ReplyDelete
  10. Are we quite sure about the 'so help me god'? Sounds a bit American to me. It crops up in the mags' court sometimes and someone, usually the usher, will step in to make sure that the standard oath is used. And of course, the Affirmation can't mention god, can it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We" may not be, but s17 of the CRA 2005 was brought into force 3 April 2006, by SI 2006/1014. That's the law of the land.

      Delete
    2. It seems it does:
      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/4/section/17

      Delete
  11. And another thing....we no longer swear in our interpreters other than in a trial, following legal advice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gosh...not heard that one BT...what was the advice?

      And on an entirely different topic...does anyone else have problems when wanting to post replies from an IPad using Safari?? This is the only site where I can't seem to do it :-(

      Delete
    2. Southlondon JP, you should not post on Safari. You may have noticed that Armand and Michaela Dennis do not have a blog or use twitter very much. They have to use local Masai runners to carry their messages, although how you find one of those in South London beats me.

      Delete
  12. Acres of forest have been destroyed writing about this topic! The E Court of HR merely ruled against the blanket ban. Yet, the court did not find problems with Italy's system which is, in some ways, far more stringent than the UK. Hence, with some common sense, the government could have easily dealt with this matter but the politicians have turned it into a major UK v Strasbourg // UK v Anything European issue.

    Let's say that you as Magistrates find D guilty of burglary on (say) 5th May and a general election is set for 15th. There is an adjournment for a pre-sentence report and the case returns to court on 14th and D is sentenced to imprisonment. He cannot vote. IF the case returned to court on 16th, then he could have voted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But what if that D is me: I always have a postal vote, so in this case my vote would already have gone in?

      Delete
    2. Bystander Team - as far as I know, the postal vote would stand. Rep of People Act 1983 s3 applies the ban "during the time of detention"

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/2/section/3

      (I'm open to correction on this if anyone knows better).

      Of course, you have highlighted a further anomaly.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  13. How did having a vote ever get to be a human right in the first place? A civil right I can understand, a civil duty I would suggest, but a human right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The UK signed up to Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. This covers free elections / universal suffrage. It is the European Court of Human Rights interpretation of Protocol 1 which is the issue. The UK is bound by judgments to which it is a party. Hence, the UK ought to legislate to comply - (my earlier comment refers). The draft bill presented to parliament by the government is simply time wasting. IMHO it reduces respect for the law.

      Delete
    2. To any rights sceptics out there - may I ask - "Which of the rights in the convention do you wish to give up?"

      Delete
    3. I would cheerfully "give up" the "right to private family life" meaning a permanent right to stay for illegal immigrants who buy cats (or have children) with people here. If their family life is so important, they can continue it somewhere where they are legally entitled to be.

      Delete
  14. @ObiterJ: Did the ECHR give me any rights that I did not already have as a natural born citizen of the United Kingdom ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps Dr Frost could explain in what possible way it should make any difference whatsoever whether one is a "natural[ly] born citizen" (and indeed what on earth an "unnaturally born" citizen actually is?).
      From Me 2 EU

      Delete
    2. That would be his flowery way of saying "citizen". And yes, Tony, art 8 isn't all bad (though I think with the current jurisprudence it is partly so): it creates a legal right to privacy which may be exercised against the media through the fiction of "breach of confidence".

      Delete
    3. Anons:
      1. Naturalized citizens, being potentially subject to a retroactive immigration process, are not the same as natural born.

      2. The 'economic' caveat in Art 8(2) narrows the right to privacy under the Common Law.

      Delete
    4. The question is still left hanging: Would Dr Frost have the law treat "natural born citizens" (not a definition in UK legislation) differently than naturalised citizens or indeed any other citizen (such as other EU citizens, who enjoy the same rights in the UK as that country's citizens)? That would be illegal.
      From Me 2 EU

      Delete
  15. I can't speak for Mr Frost, but I have benefited directly (or at leat potentially) from the Covention and Court:

    Tyrer v UK & Campbell and Cosans v UK- effectively brought corporal punishment to an end by 1987- I was a naughty child and would have been repeatedly chastised but for the Court's ruling- whether thats a good thing or otherwise who knows.

    Dudgeon v UK Led to the decriminlising of homosexual behaviour
    between consenting adult males in Northern IReland and Ireland (not been yet) & Cyprus (might go). So me and the other half can go to yet more places without being criminals.

    Sutherland v UK equalised the age of consent to 16. Not of direct benefit to me (far too late to be of direct application, and other half quite insistent about it have no possbile practical application these days). However, pleasing to know that in the modern era lads of my persuasion wont actually be criminal between 16-18, rather they can just be youthful idiots like like there hetrosexual comrades.

    Lustig-Prean and Beckett v UK and Smith and Grady v UK- again only of potentialpotential benefit to me... I have not elected to join the military. Whilst liking shooting a general underlying layer of cowardice and not enjoying marching is probably too important to be overlooked.

    It's probably a bit of a chore to read, but this publication contains lots of details about Judgement and impact on the UK.

    http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/83._european_court_of_human_rights.pdf



    ReplyDelete
  16. The first case of an individual against a state dealt with by the Court goes by the unforgettable name Lawless v Ireland (it related to detention without trial, and found there was no violation because of the prevailing state of emergency in that country). Judgment was handed down on 1 July 1961.
    From Me 2 EU

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.