News

Once again the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that a complete ban on prisoner voting rights is incompatible with the UK’s commitment to the First Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights.

Whether or not prisoners should enjoy the right to vote is a controversial subject in many democracies but perhaps none more so than in the UK. The issue pits the civil and political rights of some of the most unpopular citizens within society against the strong desire of Parliament to restrict and to limit those rights.

The reason why the UK position has been deemed unacceptable is because it applies to all convicted prisoners irrespective of the nature of the offence committed or the length of the jail term imposed – the ECtHR has held this to be arbitrary and disproportionate. But the focus on the appropriate cut off assumes that some prisoner disenfranchisement is justified and this seems to be the wrong way around – the real and logically prior question is why prisoners should be disenfranchised in the first place?

Neither Parliament or the ECtHR has paid much attention to this critical question. They should both more seriously consider the view of the Supreme Court of Canada – that prison disenfranchisement cannot rationally be said to enhance our respect for the rule of law or to impose appropriate punishment on offenders.

Politicians of all political hue have opposed reform and criticised the Court for overstepping the mark. Despite the recommendations of a Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Lords, the government have stalled taking action until the Autumn of 2015, claiming to be 'actively considering' the most effective way to implement the Court's judgment in Hirst, the original decision in which the UK position was condemned a decade ago.

Professor Alan Norrie has been awarded almost £155,000 by The Leverhulme Trust for a three year study into criminal justice theory.

Alan will primarily examine how and why different types of justice are labelled and how these labels compare with each other.

Researchers at Warwick and Monash universities are analysing the impact of cuts to the civil and criminal legal-aid systems operating in England, Wales and Victoria (Australia). The report from the second workshop held at Monash University in July 2014 has now been published.

More information on the research project is available at the 'Access to Justice' project's website.

More specialist training is required for police, lawyers and judges involved in the interrogation of juvenile suspects across Europe, Jackie Hodgson has found. There is also a need for consistency in the way youths are safeguarded within the EU, with too much focus in some countries on the detainee as a suspect, rather than as a juvenile, academics claim.

The research, which forms part of a wider European project looking at juvenile justice, is being presented at a conference in Maastricht in The Netherlands today (Friday 16 January) by Jackie who led the study in England & Wales.

Read more about this story here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/research_finds_fundamental

The House of Commons Justice Committee held its first evidence session for its inquiry into the effectiveness of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), taking evidence from academics and solicitors. Jackie Hodgson was questioned by MPs on Tuesday 13 January 2015 and you can watch her evidence on Parliament TV: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=16909

More information on the inquiry can be found on the Committee's webpage: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/justice-committee/news/criminal-cases-review-commission-academics/