Chester v SSJ; McGeoch v The Lord President of the Council and Anor [2013] UKSC 63

Court: UK Supreme Court

Facts: Prisoners serving life sentences for murder, including Chester and McGeoch, claimed that their rights had been infringed by the disenfranchisement resulting from the UK’s blanket ban on voting for prisoners. Chester relied on Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, to support his claim. The applicants argued that Parliament was slow in implementing the court's rulings regarding prisoner voting rights and sought a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the HRA. The Attorney General contended that the court should not follow the Strasbourg case law on this matter. Issue: Is the UK’s blanket ban on voting by prisoners incompatible with Article 3, Protocol 1 (A3P1) of the ECHR and Section 4 of the HRA 1998?

Held: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, applying the principles established in Hirst. The Court reaffirmed that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting is contrary to the rights of prisoners under the ECHR. The Court concluded that there was “no point in making a further declaration of incompatibility,” as stated by Lord Mance.

Key Judicial Statements: Lord Mance stated: “No point in making a further declaration of incompatibility.”

💡 LevelUpLaw: This case highlights the ongoing tension between UK legislation and European human rights law, specifically regarding the voting rights of prisoners. The Court's ruling reinforces the need for legislative action to align domestic laws with international obligations, particularly in light of the evolving understanding of human rights protections.