This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jun/11/supreme-court-challenge-prisoner-voting

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme court urged to reject challenge to prisoner voting ban Supreme court urged to reject challenge to prisoner voting ban
(4 months later)
The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has urged the supreme court to dismiss legal challenges by two convicted murderers who are seeking the right for prisoners to vote.The attorney general, Dominic Grieve, has urged the supreme court to dismiss legal challenges by two convicted murderers who are seeking the right for prisoners to vote.
While parliament is considering how to respond to rulings by the European court of human rights declaring that a ban on all inmates having the ballot was illegal, two new cases have emerged developing different points of electoral law.While parliament is considering how to respond to rulings by the European court of human rights declaring that a ban on all inmates having the ballot was illegal, two new cases have emerged developing different points of electoral law.
George McGeoch, 41, from Glasgow, who is serving a life sentence in Dumfries prison for the murder of a man in 1998, is claiming that under European Union law he is entitled to add his name to the electoral register.George McGeoch, 41, from Glasgow, who is serving a life sentence in Dumfries prison for the murder of a man in 1998, is claiming that under European Union law he is entitled to add his name to the electoral register.
Peter Chester, who is in his 50s, is serving life for raping and strangling his seven-year-old niece in Blackpool in 1977. He is detained at Wakefield prison in West Yorkshire. His lawyers have argued that under the European Parliamentary Act 2002, he should be allowed to vote in European elections.Peter Chester, who is in his 50s, is serving life for raping and strangling his seven-year-old niece in Blackpool in 1977. He is detained at Wakefield prison in West Yorkshire. His lawyers have argued that under the European Parliamentary Act 2002, he should be allowed to vote in European elections.
Grieve, the government's most senior law officer, conceded that the two cases raised important constitutional questions for the supreme court, the highest in the UK.Grieve, the government's most senior law officer, conceded that the two cases raised important constitutional questions for the supreme court, the highest in the UK.
Chester and McGeoch's claims highlighted "important questions as to the proper respective roles of the courts and of parliament in settling issues surrounding the right to vote of convicted prisoners", he told the seven justices assembled to hear the politically sensitive appeal.Chester and McGeoch's claims highlighted "important questions as to the proper respective roles of the courts and of parliament in settling issues surrounding the right to vote of convicted prisoners", he told the seven justices assembled to hear the politically sensitive appeal.
The supreme court, Grieve said, was not bound to apply the Strasbourg jurisprudence, but only to take account of any judgment of the European court of human rights, adding: "This court is entitled to take its own course and should do so where it has sufficient doubt about the soundness of the reasoning adopted by the European court of human rights."The supreme court, Grieve said, was not bound to apply the Strasbourg jurisprudence, but only to take account of any judgment of the European court of human rights, adding: "This court is entitled to take its own course and should do so where it has sufficient doubt about the soundness of the reasoning adopted by the European court of human rights."
The Strasbourg court has ruled that a blanket ban on serving prisoners going to the polls is incompatible with the European convention on human rights (ECHR). The court acknowledged that it was up to individual countries to decide which inmates should be denied the right to vote from jail, but that a total ban is illegal.The Strasbourg court has ruled that a blanket ban on serving prisoners going to the polls is incompatible with the European convention on human rights (ECHR). The court acknowledged that it was up to individual countries to decide which inmates should be denied the right to vote from jail, but that a total ban is illegal.
In November, the government published the voting eligibility (prisoners) draft bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee of both houses.In November, the government published the voting eligibility (prisoners) draft bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee of both houses.
It has put forward three options – a ban for prisoners sentenced to four years or more, a ban for prisoners sentenced to more than six months and a restatement of the existing ban.It has put forward three options – a ban for prisoners sentenced to four years or more, a ban for prisoners sentenced to more than six months and a restatement of the existing ban.
Under section three of the Representation of the People Act 1983, convicted prisoners are prevented from voting in parliamentary and local government elections – and under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, a person is entitled to vote in European parliamentary elections if he is entitled to vote in parliamentary elections.Under section three of the Representation of the People Act 1983, convicted prisoners are prevented from voting in parliamentary and local government elections – and under the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, a person is entitled to vote in European parliamentary elections if he is entitled to vote in parliamentary elections.
The court reserved its judgment.The court reserved its judgment.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.