´óÏó´«Ã½

With a Commons confrontation looming on the proposal to give prisoners the right to vote, the has added a handful of spice to a cauldron that is already bubbling nicely.

Following an ECHR judgement on the case of a British prisoner called John Hirst who had been convicted of manslaughter, which ruled that the voting ban was incompatible with the Human Rights Act, the (previous) government was set a deadline to change the law by August 2011 - and the Coalition is reluctantly proposing to give the vote to prisoners serving sentences of less than four years. That proposal is now to be tested in a backbench debate in the Commons, secured by former Labour Home Secretary Jack Straw, and senior Conservative David Davis.

And the that an Italian prisoner, Franco Scoppola, serving a 30-year sentence for killing his wife and injuring his child, should have the vote - and awarded him 26,000 euros in damages (but not costs).

This extract from the judgement is particularly intriguing:

"41. As regards the right of prisoners to vote, the Court recalls that having considered the law of the United Kingdom providing for the restriction of voting rights for all prisoners in detention is "a blunt instrument, which strips the right to vote, guaranteed by the Convention, a large number of individuals, and does so indiscriminately. This provision imposes a blanket restriction on all convicted prisoners serving their sentences and apply them automatically, regardless of the duration of their sentence and irrespective of the nature or severity of their offense and their personal situation. Must be assumed that such a blanket restriction, automatic and indiscriminate a right enshrined in the Convention and of crucial importance goes beyond acceptable margin of appreciation, however wide it is, and is incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 "(Hirst v UK (No. 2) [GC], § 82). "

Now, the four-year limit would allow considerable numbers of serious criminals to take part in elections. To pass even that limit will require a determined gritting of Conservative teeth, and Tory backbenchers may insist on a lower threshold. But maybe even four years would not be acceptable to the ECHR. I'm not a lawyer but the key issue seems to be the imposition of an automatic voting ban...but that's what the government is proposing.

So what does Parliament do if the proposed solution doesn't stick? A big round of elections is due in May - and it is rumoured that solicitors are already drumming up compensation claims from convicts which they can confidently expect to be upheld in the European Court, landing an unwelcome bill on the taxpayer.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?