Court: European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Case Reference: Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) ECHR 681
Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) is a landmark case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in 2005. It primarily deals with the issue of prisoners’ voting rights, focusing on the interpretation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to free elections.
This case arose from the blanket ban imposed by UK legislation on prisoners’ voting rights, leading the Court to rule that such a restriction violated the human rights of convicted prisoners, notably under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The judgement also involved claims of discrimination under Article 14 and freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. The ruling has continued to influence discussions on the balance between national sovereignty and the protection of individual rights.
Facts of Hirst v United Kingdom
The applicant, John Hirst, was convicted of manslaughter in 1980 and sentenced to discretionary life imprisonment. As part of the legal consequences of his conviction, Hirst was subject to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prohibits convicted prisoners from voting while incarcerated. Hirst’s claim was brought to the European Court of Human Rights after he was denied the right to vote in elections, arguing that the blanket ban on prisoners voting violated his rights under the European Convention.
Hirst invoked several provisions of the Convention, including:
- Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, claiming that the disenfranchisement imposed by the UK legislation violated his right to free elections.
- Article 14, arguing that the restriction amounted to discrimination based on his criminal status.
- Article 10, asserting that the denial of voting rights interfered with his right to freedom of expression.
The applicant sought appropriate remedies under Article 41 of the European Convention, which provides for just satisfaction when human rights violations are found.
Legal Issues
The key legal issues raised in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) were:
- Whether the blanket ban on prisoners’ voting rights violates Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to free and fair elections.
- Whether the restriction on prisoners’ voting rights constitutes discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the European Convention.
- Whether the legal restrictions on prisoners’ voting rights infringed on the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
- Whether the United Kingdom’s domestic law could justify such a blanket ban on voting rights, given the ECHR’s interpretation of the Convention.
Hirst v United Kingdom Judgement
The European Court of Human Rights ruled by a majority of 12 to 5 in favour of the applicant, Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2), and found that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. The Court concluded that the UK’s automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 – Right to Free Elections
The Court found that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoners’ voting rights violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, which guarantees the right to free and periodic elections. While the Court acknowledged that the state may impose certain restrictions on the right to vote, it concluded that a blanket ban was excessive and not justifiable under the Convention.
The Court held that any restriction on the right to vote must be proportional and necessary, and in this case, the UK government failed to provide sufficient justification for the blanket disenfranchisement. In other words, the Court determined that the UK’s restriction fell outside the permissible margin of appreciation afforded to states in determining electoral laws.
Article 14 – Prohibition of Discrimination
The Court found no violation under Article 14 (discrimination), as no separate issue arose regarding discrimination in this case. The Court viewed Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as lex specialis (a specific provision) regarding the right to vote, which took precedence over the more general anti-discrimination provisions of Article 14. Therefore, the Court did not address whether the disenfranchisement was discriminatory, as it had already determined that the restriction was unjustifiable under the right to free elections.
Article 10 – Freedom of Expression
The Court also ruled that Article 10, which protects the right to freedom of expression, was not applicable in this case. The applicant’s claim that the denial of voting rights violated his freedom of expression was dismissed, as the issue primarily concerned the right to vote, not expression per se. Therefore, the Court did not find a breach of Article 10 in this instance.
Article 41 – Just Satisfaction
In terms of just satisfaction, the Court awarded the applicant €23,200 for the legal costs incurred during the Grand Chamber proceedings. The Court further imposed default interest based on the European Central Bank’s lending rate plus 3 percentage points, as prescribed by the judgement.
Conclusion
Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) stands as a critical decision in the realm of European human rights law, particularly regarding prisoners’ voting rights. The judgement reinforced the principle of universal suffrage, establishing that the blanket disenfranchisement of prisoners violated the European Convention on Human Rights.
While the UK government has resisted implementing the decision, the case continues to be cited as a significant precedent in debates surrounding the extent of human rights protections and the relationship between national sovereignty and European human rights law. The case serves as a reminder that rights such as voting must be carefully balanced against legitimate state interests, but they cannot be arbitrarily denied, especially in the absence of compelling justification.
