John Hirst, a prisoner serving a life sentence, challenged the law that stops every convicted prisoner in detention from voting. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK's blanket ban breached the right to free elections in the European Convention on Human Rights.
Successive UK governments and Parliament resisted changing the law. More than a decade later, the UK made small administrative changes, which the Council of Europe accepted.
The case shows the tension between parliamentary sovereignty and the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg's ruling bound the UK in international law, but it could not change UK law: Parliament kept the ban for more than a decade and the eventual change was minimal.
It is also a live example in debates over the franchise, raising the question of whether voting is a right of every citizen or something that can be lost by breaking the law.
Supporters of the ban argue that those who break the social contract lose its rights, and that the ruling was an overreach by Strasbourg.
The changes the Council of Europe accepted were administrative, and prisoners serving sentences in prison still cannot vote in UK general elections.
The development has ended or been reversed, but remains useful evidence.
The leading case for the debate over votes for prisoners, linking democracy and participation to rights in the UK.
Signed off for students.
Origin: AI draft (Claude) · Reviewer: Editor
Every fact on this page has been checked against original sources.