By the end of the lecture you should be able to:
- describe the key elements of the prisoner voting saga
- critically analyse the institutional relationships in the prisoner voting saga
- identify and evaluate the role of constitutional norms in the prisoner voting saga
- evaluate the variety of perspectives on the constitutional implications of prisoner voting
Public Law textbook, 4th ed, 219-227.
Hirst v UK (No.2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41.
Scoppola v Italy (No.3) (2013) 1 Costs L.O. 62.
Joint Committee on Draft Voting Eligibility (Prisoners Bill) Final Report (2013).
HC Library Note on Prisoner Voting Rights (2014).
Colin Murray ‘A Perfect Storm: Parliament and Prisoner Disenfranchisement’ (2013) 66 Parliamentary Affairs 511.
Ed Bates ‘British sovereignty and the European Court of Human Rights’ (2012) Law Quarterly Review 382.
Sandra Fredman ‘From Dialogue to Deliberation: Human Rights Adjudication and Prisoners’ Rights to Vote’ (2013) Public Law 292.
Danny Nicol ‘Legitimacy of the Commons Debate on Prisoner Voting’ (2011) Public Law 681.
Some of the Reading are attached.
The link is also recommenced reading.
Questions for discussion
- Examine the majority and dissenting opinions in the Hirst (No 2). Do you agree that s 3 is disproportionate? Explain your view with reference to both the dissenting and majority opinions.
- Explain the significance of Scoppola (No.3).
- Identify and evaluate the role of constitutional norms in the prisoner voting debate.
- “It is right that courts should be able to demand a minimum standard of legislative deliberation on questions of rights”
- Overall the prisoner voting saga highlights the strength of the system of human rights in the UK”