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.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/16/votes-prisoners-supreme-court-rejects-appeal

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Vote for prisoners: supreme court rejects appeal by two inmates Vote for prisoners appeal rejected by supreme court
(35 minutes later)
Two convicted murderers who argued that European Union law gave them the right to vote in UK elections have had their appeals dismissed by the supreme court at Westminster.Two convicted murderers who argued that European Union law gave them the right to vote in UK elections have had their appeals dismissed by the supreme court at Westminster.
Peter Chester, who is serving a life sentence in England, and George McGeoch, who is behind bars in Scotland, both attempted to outflank the current political impasse over prisoner voting rights. Peter Chester, who is serving a life sentence in England, and George McGeoch, who is behind bars in Scotland, both attempted to outflank the political impasse over prisoner voting rights.
The European court human of rights in Strasbourg has already ruled that Britain's ban that denies all those serving any sentence the ability to vote is illegal.The European court human of rights in Strasbourg has already ruled that Britain's ban that denies all those serving any sentence the ability to vote is illegal.
A parliamentary committee is currently considering the political options - whether to enforce those rulings or defy ECHR judges. A parliamentary committee is considering the political options - whether to enforce those rulings or defy ECHR judges.
The supreme court judges acknowledged that Strasbourg has stated that the ban on prisoner voting is incompatible with human rights but observed that since the declaration has already been made there was no point in repeating it. The supreme court justices observed that since that Strasbourg has already declared that the blanket ban on prisoner voting incompatible with human rights there was no point in repeating it.
More details soon . . . David Cameron welcomed the unanimous supreme court decision. The prime minister tweeted: "The supreme court judgment on prisoner voting is a great victory for common sense."
Chester, in his 50s, is serving life for raping and strangling his seven-year-old niece Donna Marie Gillbanks in Blackpool in 1977. He is detained at Wakefield prison in West Yorkshire; the minimum term he was ordered to serve before becoming eligible to apply for parole has expired.
McGeoch, from Glasgow, is serving his life sentence at Dumfries prison for the 1998 murder of Eric Innes in Inverness. He received a minimum term of 13 years, but due to subsequent convictions, including taking two prison nurses hostage in a siege in 2001, will not be considered for parole until 2015.
Handing down the decision, Lord Mance said that in relation to both appellants' claims under EU law: "The provisions on voting contained in the applicable European treaties focus on the core concerns of ensuring equal treatment between EU citizens residing in member states other than that of their nationality, and so safeguarding freedom of movement within the EU. Eligibility to vote in member states is basically a matter for national legislatures."
The justices said that even if voting was to be extended to some prisoners it was not clear that either McGeoch or Chester would necessarily benefit from a change to the rules, which could exclude prisoners convicted of more serious offences.
The prime minister has vowed that inmates will not be given voting rights under his administration and has said that the idea of giving prisoners the vote makes him sick.
He told the House of Commons last year: "No one should be in any doubt: prisoners are not getting the vote under this government."
The European court of human rights ruled in 2005, in the case of John Hirst, that a blanket ban on serving prisoners going to the polls was incompatible with the European convention on human rights (ECHR), relating to the right to free and fair elections.
That court said it was up to individual countries to decide which inmates should be denied the right to vote from jail, but that a total ban was illegal.
In November, the government published the voting eligibility (prisoners) draft bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by a joint committee of both houses. It set out three options - a ban for prisoners sentenced to four years or more, a ban for prisoners sentenced to more than six months and a re-statement of the existing ban.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.