Attorney General Urges Supreme Court to Reject Prisoners’ Right to Vote

Attorney General Dominic Grieve stated again that he still believes prisoners should not take part in the elections giving their votes.

The current UK law and legal documents says that only prisoners on remand are allowed to vote but two prisoners serving life-sentences brought a case fighting for their rights claiming they wanted to take an active part in the elections.

If the Supreme Court rules in favour of Chester and McGeoch, this will put the end of the ban in the UK preventing prisoners from voting.

The High Court has already rejected a similar appeal brought by Chester in 2009.

The opinion of Dominic Grieve is that the UK Supreme Court needn’t follow the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights according to which each nation could take their own decision if prisoners should be allowed to vote or not.

“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,” he told yesterday.

In his words, these cases appear to raise interesting constitutional questions.

Last November the government published the Voting Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill. It proposed two alternatives- the first one says that prisoners sentenced four or more years in jail should be banned voting and the other says those sentences to 6 months or more should also be banned.

In October, David Cameron stated that this government would definitely not allow the prisoners to vote.

On the other hand, the mother of the girl killed by Peter Chester accused him of wasting taxpayer money.

“Where were my human rights?” she asked. “Where were Donna’s human rights?”