Hirst v UK (No.2) [2005] ECHR 681

Court: European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber)

Facts: Hirst, a prisoner serving a discretionary life sentence for manslaughter, challenged the UK's ban on prisoners voting, as established under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA). He argued that this disenfranchisement violated Article 3 of Protocol 1 (A3P1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to free elections. The UK government contended that member states had a wide margin of appreciation in determining the scope of the right to vote under A3P1, suggesting that the ban was a policy decision within the country’s discretion.

Issue: Was the right to vote under Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR absolute, or did member states have a wide margin of appreciation to impose restrictions, including disenfranchisement of prisoners?

Held: Application allowed by a majority of 12-5. The European Court of Human Rights held that the UK's blanket ban on prisoner voting, as imposed under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, violated Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR. The Court ruled that while member states have a margin of appreciation, the UK’s automatic and indiscriminate ban on all prisoners violated the right to free elections. The Court emphasized that any restrictions on the right to vote must be proportionate and must not impair the essence of the right itself.

Key Judicial Statements: "The blanket restriction on voting by prisoners was arbitrary and indiscriminate, and therefore in violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1." The Court also highlighted that “while the margin of appreciation is broad, it is not unlimited; any limitations on voting rights must be compatible with the underlying principles of the Convention.”

💡 LevelUpLaw: This landmark ruling significantly impacted the legal landscape surrounding prisoner voting rights in the UK. It underscored that any restriction on fundamental rights, such as the right to vote, must be proportionate, necessary, and justifiable, prompting debate and legislative review on the issue of disenfranchisement for prisoners.