R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2012] UKSC 63
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: In the UK, Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 prohibits prisoners currently serving sentences from voting. This ban extends to European and Scottish Parliamentary elections. Two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, claimed their rights were infringed by this disenfranchisement. Chester, one of the prisoners, relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (A3P1), incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). The Strasbourg court had previously ruled in Hirst (No 2) (2006) and Scoppola v Italy that the UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting was incompatible with A3P1. The applicants argued that Parliament was slow to implement these rulings and sought a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 of the HRA 1998. The Attorney General contended that the court should refuse to follow Strasbourg case law.
Issue: Is the UK’s blanket ban on voting by prisoners incompatible with A3P1 of the Convention and Section 4 of the HRA 1998?
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Key Judicial Statement: Lord Mance, in the leading judgment, emphasized the importance of the principles established in Hirst and stated that the blanket ban on prisoner voting was indeed contrary to the prisoners’ rights. However, he noted that there was "no point in making a further declaration of incompatibility" in this case. He elaborated on the duty under Section 2 of the HRA to "take into account" Strasbourg jurisprudence, stating:
“Dialogue with Strasbourg by national courts... has proved valuable... But there are limits to this process, particularly where the matter has been already to a Grand Chamber... It would have to involve some truly fundamental principle of our law or some most egregious oversight... before it could be appropriate for this Court to contemplate an outright refusal to follow Strasbourg authority at the Grand Chamber level.” 【27】
On the blanket ban, he stated, “I do not consider that it would be right for this Court to refuse to apply the principles established by the Grand Chamber decisions in Hirst (No 2) and Scoppola.” 【34】
💡Leveluplaw: reinforces the authority of the European Court of Human Rights over domestic legislation concerning prisoners’ rights. Lord Mance’s ruling highlights the complexity of the relationship between UK courts and Strasbourg, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established jurisprudence. The court's reluctance to issue a further declaration of incompatibility reflects ongoing debates regarding parliamentary responsiveness to human rights rulings and the potential for judicial activism in the interpretation of these rights.