Hirst v. UK (No. 2) Case: ECHR Violates Article 3, Protocol 1, Lecture notes of Human Rights

Download Hirst v. UK (No. 2) Case: ECHR Violates Article 3, Protocol 1 and more Lecture notes Human Rights in PDF only on Docsity! EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 512 6.10.2005 Press release issued by the Registrar GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (NO. 2) The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing a Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Hirst v. the United Kingdom (No. 2) (application no. 74025/01). The Court held:  by 12 votes to five, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (right to free elections) to the European Convention on Human Rights; and,  unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 10 (freedom of expression) or Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held, unanimously, that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and, by twelve votes to five, awarded the applicant 23,200 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French.) 1. Principal facts The applicant, John Hirst, is a British national, aged 54, who was serving a sentence of life imprisonment in HM Prison Rye Hill, Warwickshire (United Kingdom). On 25 May 2004, he was released from prison on licence. On 11 February 1980 Mr Hirst pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. He was sentenced to a term of discretionary life imprisonment. His tariff (the part of his sentence relating to retribution and deterrence) expired on 25 June 1994. However, he remained in detention, as the Parole Board considered that he continued to present a risk of serious harm to the public. As a convicted prisoner, Mr Hirst is barred by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 from voting in parliamentary or local elections. According to the United Kingdom Government’s figures, some 48,000 other prisoners are similarly affected. Mr Hirst issued proceedings in the High Court, under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, seeking a declaration that section 3 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. On 21 and 22 March 2001 his application was heard before the Divisional Court; but his claim and subsequent appeal were both rejected. 1 Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). - 2 - 2. Procedure and composition of the Court The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 5 July 2001 and declared partly admissible on 8 July 2003. A hearing took place in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 16 December 2003. In a judgment of 30 March 2004 (see press release no. 157 for 2004), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, and that no separate issue arose under Articles 10 and 14. The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request, under Article 43 (referral to the Grand Chamber), and, on 10 November 2004, the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted that request. A Grand Chamber hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building on 27 April 2005. Third Party interventions were received from the Prison Reform Trust, the AIRE Centre and the Latvian Government (please see judgment for details). Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows: Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President, Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Nicolas Bratza (British), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss)1, Françoise Tulkens (Belgian) Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Ljiljana Mijović (Citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Danute Jočienė (Lithuanian), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges, and also Erik Fribergh, Deputy Registrar. 3. Summary of the judgment2 Complaints The applicant alleged that, as a convicted prisoner in detention, he was subject to a blanket ban on voting in elections. He relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, Article 14, as well as Article 10 of the Convention. 1 Elected in respect of Liechtenstein. 2 This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.