Q&A: UK Prisoners' right to vote

John Hirst was given a life sentence after admitting manslaughter

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has ruled that banning ex-inmate John Hirst from the polls had breached his right to free elections.

Following the ruling, the Lord Chancellor said British laws would be reviewed and some categories of prisoner might be allowed to vote.

BBC News looks at the background to the case and the issues surrounding prisoner voting.

Q: What led John Hirst to begin his campaign?

Mr Hirst said he began his legal campaign because he believed there was no real way for prisoners to effect change.

"Basically I'd read books that said if you want to change something you start up a pressure group, and then you put pressure on MPs and then you get things changed in parliament.

"Well that's alright if you've got the vote and you've got some clout behind you.

"When you're a prisoner, the only thing you can do if you want to complain and no-one listens, is riot and lift the roof off - which isn't the best way of going about things.

"Because we didn't have a vote, there was no will in parliament to change anything," he said.

"Prison officers would talk to me and say 'oh you're a prisoner, you're less than human', and all the rest of it , and I said 'no I'm not, I'm a human being, I've got rights,' and they'd say 'well, where are they? What are they?' "

Q: Will giving prisoners the right to vote make any difference?

Mr Hirst said if prisoners were also voters politicians would seek out their views when canvassing for votes.

"What this will do is force them to go knocking on people's doors inside - knocking on cell doors, asking them what they think, offering them incentives or privileges to try to get their vote.

"What you have got there is actually a mini community - behind prison walls, the same as outside only it's smaller - it's a microcosm of it. So politics is a very big thing in prison."

Q: Why was the case heard in the European Court of Human Rights?

In April 2001, Mr Hirst was one of three prisoners to argue in Britain's High Court that the voting ban was incompatible with the Human Rights Act.

DENIED THE VOTE Prison inmates Hereditary peers in the House of Lords Life peers Royal family People convicted of corrupt or illegal election practices Patients detained in psychiatric hospitals because of their crimes

Dismissing the case, the court ruled there was a broad spectrum of approaches to the question of prisoners voting and that Britain fell into the middle.

"In the course of time, this position may move, either by way of fine tuning, as was done recently in relation to remand prisoners and others, or more radically, but its position in the spectrum is plainly a matter for Parliament, not the courts."

Mr Hirst subsequently took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in March 2004.

It ruled that the British government was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The British government appealed to the European Court's grand chamber, but on 6 October 2005 it upheld the ruling.

Q: What are the arguments against prisoners voting?

The loss of the right to vote has been seen as part of the punishment for committing a crime.

When the government announced it was appealing the European Court's original ruling, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Firkin, said: "It has been the view of successive governments, including this government, that persons who have committed crimes serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence should forfeit the right to have a say in how the country is governed while they are detained."

Lord Filkin went on: "For many years it has been part of our society's tradition that, when people are imprisoned, they lose a range of rights, one of which is the right to participate in elections."

In the original hearing at the European Court of Human Rights, the government said the restriction on the right to vote was aimed at preventing crime, punishing offenders and enhancing civil responsibility and respect for the law.

After the grand council upheld that ruling, shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve said it would be "ludicrous" to give prisoners the right to vote.

"If convicted rapists and murderers are given the vote it will bring the law into disrepute and many people will see it as making a mockery of justice," he said.

Mr Grieve told the BBC: "My personal view has always been that if somebody is sentenced to a period in prison that the right to vote does go for that period.

"Of course it reverts when they leave prison and I think most people would consider that's a fair approach."

Q: What are the arguments in favour?

Supporters say giving prisoners the right to vote helps with their rehabilitation and keeps them in touch with society and their role as citizens within the wider community.

In its original ruling, the European Court of Human Rights said: "[The] removal of the vote... runs counter to the rehabilitation of the offender as a law-abiding member of the community and undermines the authority of the law as derived from a legislature which the community as a whole votes into power."

It said there was no evidence disenfranchisement helped to prevent crime.

The Bishop to HM Prisons, the Right Reverend Dr Peter Selby, has also spoken in support of prisoners' right to vote.

He said not allowing them to vote states "society's belief that once convicted you are a non-person, one who should have no say in how our society is to develop, whose opinion is to count for nothing".

Conservative MP Peter Bottomley said: "Voting in prison can be a useful first step to engaging in society."

John Hirst said: "Every human being has rights and it is up to us all to ensure that those people get those human rights and not say 'oh because they're a prisoner they should be denied them'."

"What you forfeit when you go to jail is your liberty - you know, you can't pop down the pub for a pint, you can't have sex with your loved one, you know, that is what you're actually forfeiting - not the vote.

Q: Will all prisoners be given the right to vote as a result of the ruling?

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, has said the ruling does not require all prisoners to be given the vote.

"We've always taken the view in this country - for a very, very long time - that if you are sent to prison, as a convicted prisoner, not one on remand, you lose - during the time that you're in prison - the right to vote.

"What the European Court is saying is 'well is that right, have you considered whether it should be different for more serious prisoners than less serious prisoners?'."

"I can make it absolutely clear that in relation to convicted prisoners, the result of this is not that every convicted prisoner is in the future going to get the rights to vote.

"We need to look and see whether there are any categories that should be given the rights to vote."

Earlier in 2005, the government said offenders whose sentences were split between jail and the community would be allowed to vote in the General Election if they were not in prison on election day.

Q: Will anything else change?

In its ruling, the European Court also pointed out that the law on prisoners' voting rights had not been properly looked into since the introduction of the Forfeiture Act.

It said a review was needed.

The 1870 Act ended the state's practice of confiscating convicts assets in favour of the notion of "civic death", which saw prisoners effectively no longer being considered a part of society.

John Hirst said Britain needed to move on from the concept.

He told BBC Radio Four: "It's sad that in this day and age...that people still have a Victorian mentality.

"I would like to see people starting waking up and realising it's 2005 - perhaps we should start thinking more in line with people in Europe."

Lord Falconer said a review of the laws on prisoners' voting rights would have to take place.

"The issue that the court have raised is not it's unlawful ever to do it, they're saying you haven't properly considered the way that you do it," he said.

Q: How does Britain's law compare to other European countries'?

PRISONER VOTING BANNED Armenia Bulgaria Czech Republic Estonia Hungary Luxemburg Romania Russia United Kingdom Source: Prison Reform Trust Prisoner voting: world views

Mr Hirst told the BBC the ruling showed the government was "out of touch with not only the public over here but what is going in Europe and the rest of the world."

Eighteen European states, including the Irish Republic and Spain, put no voting restrictions on prisoners.

However, in practice it is hard for inmates in some of these countries to cast their ballots.

The government of the Republic of Ireland, for example, says prisoners have no right to be given physical access to a ballot box by temporary release, or a postal vote, or any other way."