The claimants, serving prisoners, sought damages saying that the refusal to allow them to vote was in infringement of their human rights. The large numbers of claims had been consolidated in London. The claimant sought to withdraw his claim.
Held: The claims failed and were struck out: ‘there are no reasonable grounds in domestic law for bringing a claim for damages or a declaration for being disenfranchised whilst a prisoner. Statute precludes it. Case-law is against it. European authority is against the payment of compensatory damages in respect of it. A claim for a declaration is not hopeless, but difficult. The fact the Secretary of State (or the State) has not acted to remedy the contravention identified in Hirst and Greens does not itself give rise to a claim for damages, because the express wording of Statute prevents it.’
As a representative claim the claimant had no simple right to withdraw, but legal aid had been refused, and not to allow him might leave the fate of other applicants compromised. An adjournment was inappropriate, and the court heard the defendant’s application for a strike out.
A reading down of the Act to make it comply with the ECHR rulings would require the statute wording to be turned on its head, and ‘ to interpret the statute in this way would be a step too far’.
as to costs, each of the remaining claimants should pay an equal share of the defendant’s costs.
Langstaff J
[2011] EWHC 271 (QB), [2011] HRLR 17
Bailii
Representation of the People Act 1983 3, Human Rights Act 1998 6 7
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State ex parte Toner and Walsh NIQB 1997
The claimants sought damages saying that the respondent had infringed their human rights in removing their right to vote in an election whilst serving prison sentences. . .
Cited – Chester v Secretary of State for Justice and Wakefield Metropolitan District Council CA 17-Dec-2010
The prisoner claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of his disenfranchisement whilst a prisoner.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. It was not possible to read into the Act as suggested a duty on a judge on . .
Cited – Smith v KD Scott, Electoral Registration Officer SCS 24-Jan-2007
The prisoner claimed that his right to vote had not been re-instated despite a year having passed since the European Court of Human Rights had found that the withdrawal of that right for prisoners was an infringement.
Held: It was not possible . .
Grand Chamber decision – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Greens v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Nov-2010
The applicants alleged a violation of article 3 in the refusal to allow them to enrol on the electoral register whilst serving prison sentences.
Held: Where one of its judgments raises issues of general public importance and sensitivity, in . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Sheldrake v Director of Public Prosecutions; Attorney General’s Reference No 4 of 2002 HL 14-Oct-2004
Appeals were brought complaining as to the apparent reversal of the burden of proof in road traffic cases and in cases under the Terrorism Acts. Was a legal or an evidential burden placed on a defendant?
Held: Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: . .
Cited – Frodl v Austria ECHR 8-Apr-2010
The applicant alleged that his disenfranchisement because he was serving a term of imprisonment of more than one year constituted a breach of his rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. . .
Cited – Davies v Eli Lilly and Co (Opren Litigation) CA 1987
The powers in the section together with the power to make orders for costs under Order 62 of the Rules of the Supreme Court included the power to make a pre-emptive order for costs.
Lord Donaldson MR said: ‘In these circumstances the judge . .
Cited – Actavis UK Ltd v Eli Lilly and Co Ltd CA 2010
A party who discontinues, having allied himself to a claim brought by another, may, nonetheless, be called on to pay the entirety of the costs together with that other where that other is unsuccessful . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons, Elections
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.429741
