CASE OF HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (No. 2)
Violation of P1-3;No separate issue under Art. 14;No separate issue under Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award
Matti Pellonpää;Nicolas Bratza;Simon Brown
8. The applicant was born in 1950 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HM Prison Rye Hill, Warwickshire. 9. On 11 February 1980, the applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on ground of diminished responsibility. His plea of guilty was accepted on the basis of medical evidence that the applicant was a man with a gross personality disorder to such a degree that he was amoral. He was sentenced to a term of discretionary life imprisonment. 10. The applicant’s tariff (that part of the sentence relating to retribution and deterrence) expired on 25 June 1994. His continued detention is based on considerations relating to risk and dangerousness, the Parole Board considering that he continues to present a risk of serious harm to the public. 11. The applicant, who is barred by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 from voting in parliamentary or local elections, issued proceedings in the High Court under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998, seeking a declaration that this provision was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. 12. The applicant’s application was heard before the Divisional Court on 21 and 22 March 2001, together with the application for judicial review of two other prisoners, Mr Pearson and Mr Feal-Martinez, who had applied for registration as electors and been refused by the Registration Officer and who also sought a declaration of incompatibility. 13. In its judgment dated 4 April 2001, the Divisional Court noted that in Europe only eight countries, including the United Kingdom, did not give convicted prisoners a vote, while 20 did not disenfranchise prisoners and eight imposed a more restricted disenfranchisement. Reference was made to the United States Supreme Court which had rejected a challenge to the Californian Constitution’s disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners (Richardson v. Ramirez [1974] 418 US 24); and to Canadian precedents, in particular the Canadian Supreme Court which in the case of Sauvé v. Canada (No. 1) ([1992] 2 SCR 438) struck down the disenfranchisement of prisoners as too widely drawn and infringing against the minimum impairment rule and the Federal Court of Appeal which upheld in Sauvé (No. 2) ([2000] 2 CF) the subsequent legislative provision which restricted the ban to prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more in a correctional institution. The cases before the European Commission of Human Rights and this Court were also reviewed. Lord Justice Kennedy concluded: “... I return to what was said by the European Court in paragraph 52 of its judgment in Mathieu-Mohin. Of course as far as an individual prisoner is concerned disenfranchisement does impair the very essence of his right to vote, but that is too simplistic an approach, because what Article 3 of the First Protocol is really concerned with is the wider question of universal franchise, and ‘the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’. If an individual is to be disenfranchised that must be in the pursuit of a legitimate aim. In the case of a convicted prisoner serving his sentence the aim may not be easy to articulate. Clearly there is an element of punishment, and also an element of electoral law. As the Home Secretary said, Parliament has taken the view that for the period during which they are in custody convicted prisoners have forfeited their right to have a say in the way the country is governed. The Working Group said that such prisoners had lost the moral authority to vote. Perhaps the best course is that suggested by Linden JA, namely to leave to philosophers the true nature of this disenfranchisement whilst recognising that the legislation does different things. The European Court also requires that the means employed to restrict the implied Convention rights to vote are not disproportionate, and that is the point at which, as it seems to me, it is appropriate for this court to defer to the legislature. It is easy to be critical of a law which operates against a wide spectrum (e.g. in relation to its effect on post-tariff discretionary life prisoners, and those detained under some provision of the Mental Health Act 1983), but, as is clear from the authorities, those states which disenfranchise following conviction do not all limit the period of disenfranchisement to the period in custody. Parliament in this country could have provided differently in order to meet the objectives which it discerned, and like McLachlin J in Canada, I would accept that the tailoring process seldom admits of perfection, so the courts must afford some leeway to the legislator. As [counsel for the Secretary of State] submits, there is a broad spectrum of approaches among democratic societies, and the United Kingdom falls into the middle of the spectrum. In course of time this position may move, either by way of further fine tuning, as was recently done in relation to remand prisoners and others, or more radically, but its position in the spectrum is plainly a matter for Parliament not for the courts. That applies even to the ‘hard cases’ of post-tariff discretionary life sentence prisoners... They have all been convicted and if, for example, Parliament were to have said that all those sentenced to life imprisonment lose the franchise for life the apparent anomaly of their position would disappear. ... If section 3 (1) of the 1983 Act can meet the challenge of Article 3 [of the First Protocol] then Article 14 had nothing to offer, any more than Article 10.” 14. The applicant’s claims were accordingly rejected as were those of the other prisoners. 15. On 2 May 2001, an application for permission to appeal was filed on behalf of Pearson and Feal-Martinez, together with a 43-page skeleton argument. On 15 May 2001, Lord Justice Buxton considered the application on the papers and refused permission on the grounds that the appeal had no real prospect of success. 16. On 19 May 2001, the applicant filed an application for permission to appeal. On 7 June 2001, his application was considered on the papers by Lord Justice Simon Brown who refused permission for the same reasons as Lord Justice Buxton in relation to the earlier applications. The applicant’s renewed application, together with the renewed applications of Pearson and Feal-Martinez, were refused on 18 June 2001, after oral argument, by Lord Justice Simon Brown. 17. Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides: “(1) A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence ...is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local election.” This section re-enacted without debate the provisions of section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1969, the substance of which back dated to the Forfeiture Act 1870 of the previous century, which in turn reflected earlier rules of law relating to the forfeiture of certain rights by a convicted “felon” (the so-called “civic death” of the times of King Edward III). 18. The disqualification does not apply to persons imprisoned for contempt of court (section 3(2)a) or to those imprisoned only for default in, for example, paying a fine (section 3(2)c). 19. During the passage through Parliament of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which permitted remand prisoners and unconvicted mental patients to vote, Mr Howarth MP, speaking for the Government, maintained the view that “it should be part of a convicted prisoner’s punishment that he loses rights and one of them is the right to vote”. The Act was accompanied by a statement of compatibility under the section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, namely, a statement that in introducing the measure in Parliament the Secretary of State considered its provisions to be compatible with the Convention. 20. On 22 February 2001, the Secretary of State gave his reasons for maintaining the policy of disenfranchising convicted prisoners: “By committing offences which by themselves or taken with any aggravating circumstances including the offender’s character and previous criminal record require a custodial sentence, such prisoners have forfeited the right to have a say in the way the country is governed for that period. There is more than one element to punishment than forcible detention. Removal from society means removal from the privileges of society, amongst which is the right to vote for one’s representative.” 21. Section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides: “(1) Subsection (2) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right. (2) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.” 22. Relevant provisions of the ICCPR provide: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in Article 2 [race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status] and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote...” 1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. ... 3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation.” 23. In the General Comment (No. 25(57)) adopted by the Human Rights Committee under Article 40(4) of the ICCPR dated 27 August 1996, the Committtee stated, inter alia, concerning the right guaranteed under Article 25: “14. In their reports, State parties should indicate and explain the legislative provisions which would deprive citizens of their right to vote. The grounds for such deprivation should be objective and reasonable. If conviction for an offence is a basis for suspending the right to vote, the period of suspension should be proportionate to the offence and the sentence. Persons who are deprived of liberty but who have not been convicted should not be excluded from exercising the right to vote.” “64. Imprisonment is by the deprivation of liberty a punishment in itself. The conditions of imprisonment and the prison regimes shall not, therefore, except as incidental to justifiable segregation or the maintenance of discipline, aggravate the suffering inherent in this.” 24. This document adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) at its 51st Plenary Session (5-6 July 2002) and submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 6 November 2002 includes the Commission’s guidelines as to the circumstances in which there may be deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected: “d. ... i. provision may be made for depriving individuals of their right to vote and to be elected, but only subject to the following cumulative conditions; ii. it must be provided for by law; iii. the proportionality principle must be observed; conditions for disenfranchising individuals of the right to stand for election may be less strict than for disenfranchising them; iv. The deprivation must be based on mental incapacity or a criminal conviction for a serious offence. v. Furthermore, the withdrawal of political rights or finding of mental incapacity may only be imposed by express decision of a court of law.” 25. Following the decision of the Administrative Court in the present case, the Supreme Court of Canada on 31 October 2002 held by five votes to four that section 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act 1985, which denied the right to vote to every person imprisoned in a correctional institution serving a sentence of two years or more, was unconstitutional, i.e., infringing Articles 1 and 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” “3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.” 26. The majority opinion given by McLachlin C.J. is summarised as follows in the headnote: “To justify the infringement of a Charter right under s. 1, the government must show that the infringement achieves a constitutionally valid purpose or objective, and that the chosen means are reasonable and demonstrably justified. The government’s argument that denying the right to vote to penitentiary inmates requires deference because it is a matter of social and political philosophy is rejected. While deference may be appropriate on a decision involving competing social and political policies, it is not appropriate on a decision to limit fundamental rights. The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and the rule of law and cannot be lightly set aside. Limits on it require not deference, but careful examination. The framers of the Charter signalled the special importance of this right not only by its broad, untrammelled language, but by exempting it from legislative override under s. 33’s notwithstanding clause. The argument that the philosophically-based or symbolic nature of the objectives in itself commands deference is also rejected. Parliament cannot use lofty objectives to shield legislation from Charter scrutiny. Here, s. 51 (e) is not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The government has failed to identify particular problems that require denying the right to vote, making it hard to conclude that the denial is directed at a pressing and substantial purpose. In the absence of a specific problem, the government asserts two broad objectives for s. 51(e): (1) to enhance civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law; and (2) to provide additional punishment or ‘enhance the general purposes of the criminal sanction’. Vague and symbolic objectives, however, make the justification analysis difficult. The first objective could be asserted of virtually every criminal law and many non-criminal measures. Concerning the second objective, nothing in the record discloses precisely why Parliament felt that more punishment was required for this particular class of prisoner, or what additional objectives Parliament hoped to achieve by this punishment that were not accomplished by the sentences already imposed. Nevertheless, rather than dismissing the government’s objectives outright, prudence suggests that we proceed to the proportionality inquiry. Section 51(e) does not meet the proportionality test. In particular, the government fails to establish a rational connection between s. 51(e)’s denial of the right to vote and its stated objectives. With respect to the first objective of promoting civic responsibility and respect for the law, denying penitentiary inmates the right to vote is more likely to send messages that undermine respect for the law and democracy than messages that enhance those values. The legitimacy of the law and the obligation to obey the law flow directly from the right of every citizen to vote. To deny prisoners the right to vote is to lose an important means of teaching them democratic values and social responsibility. The government’s novel political theory that would permit elected representatives to disenfranchise a segment of the population finds no place in a democracy built upon principles of inclusiveness, equality, and citizen participation. That not all self-proclaimed democracies adhere to this conclusion says little about what the Canadian vision of democracy embodied in the Charter permits. Moreover, the argument that only those who respect the law should participate in the political process cannot be accepted. Denial of the right to vote on the basis of attributed moral unworthiness is inconsistent with the respect for the dignity of every person that lies at the heart of Canadian democracy and the Charter. It also runs counter to the plain words of s. 3 of the Charter, its exclusion from the s. 33 override, and the idea that laws command obedience because they are made by those whose conduct they govern. With respect to the second objective of imposing appropriate punishment, the government offered no credible theory about why it should be allowed to deny a fundamental democratic right as a form of state punishment. Denying the right to vote does not comply with the requirements for legitimate punishment - namely, that punishment must not be arbitrary and must serve a valid criminal law purpose. Absence of arbitrariness requires that punishment be tailored to the acts and circumstances of the individual offender. Section 51(e) qua punishment bears little relation to the offender’s particular crime. As to a legitimate penal purpose, neither the record nor common sense supports the claim that disenfranchisement deters crime or rehabilitates criminals. By imposing a blanket punishment on all penitentiary inmates regardless of the particular crimes they committed, the harm they caused, or the normative character of their conduct, s. 51(e) does not meet the requirements of denunciatory, retributive punishment, and is not rationally connected to the government’s stated goal. The impugned provision does not minimally impair the right to vote. Section 51(e) is too broad, catching many people who, on the government’s own theory, should not be caught. Section 51(e) cannot be saved by the mere fact that it is less restrictive than a blanket exclusion of all inmates from the franchise. Lastly, the negative effects of denying citizens the right to vote would greatly outweigh the tenuous benefits that might ensue. Denying prisoners the right to vote imposes negative costs on prisoners and on the penal system. It removes a route to social development and undermines correctional law and policy directed towards rehabilitation and integration. In light of the disproportionate number of Aboriginal people in penitentiaries, the negative effects of s. 51(e) upon prisoners have a disproportionate impact on Canada’s already disadvantaged Aboriginal population. ...” 27. The minority opinion given by Gonthier J. is summarised, in extract, as follows: “...In this case, while it has been conceded that s. 51(e) of the Canada Elections Act infringes s. 3 of the Charter, the infringement is a reasonable limit that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The objectives of s. 51(e) are pressing and substantial. Both objectives are based upon a reasonable and rational social or political philosophy. The first objective, that of enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law, relates to the promotion of good citizenship. The social rejection of serious crime reflects a moral line which safeguards the social contract and the rule of law and bolsters the importance of the nexus between individuals and the community. The ‘promotion of civic responsibility’ may be abstract or symbolic, but symbolic or abstract purposes can be valid of their own accord and must not be downplayed simply for the reason of their being symbolic. The second objective is the enhancement of the general purposes of the criminal sanction. Section 51(e) clearly has a punitive aspect with a retributive function. It is a valid objective for Parliament to develop appropriate sanctions and punishments for serious crime. The disenfranchisement is a civil disability arising from the criminal conviction. Section 51(e) meets the proportionality tests. First, the impugned legislation is rationally connected to the objectives. While a causal relationship between disenfranchising prisoners and the objectives is not empirically demonstrable, reason, logic and common sense, as well as extensive expert evidence, support a conclusion that there is a rational connection between disenfranchising offenders incarcerated for serious crimes and the objectives of promoting civic responsibility and the rule of law and the enhancement of the general objectives of the penal sanction. ... Further, the disenfranchisement of serious criminal offenders serves to deliver a message to both the community and the offenders themselves that serious criminal activity will not be tolerated by the community. Society may choose to curtail temporarily the availability of the vote to serious criminals to insist that civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law, as goals worthy of pursuit, are prerequisites to democratic participation. With respect to the second objective, the disenfranchisement is carefully tailored to apply to perpetrators of serious crimes, and there is evidence in the record indicating that the denial of the right to vote is perceived as meaningful by the prisoners themselves and can therefore contribute to the rehabilitation of prisoners. Lastly, many other democracies have, by virtue of choosing some form of prisoner disenfranchisement, also identified a connection between objectives similar to those advanced in the case at bar and the means of prisoner disenfranchisement. Second, the impairment of the Charter right is minimal. ... Only ‘serious offenders’, as determined by Parliament, are subject to disenfranchisement. Since Parliament has drawn a two-year cut off line which identifies which incarcerated offenders have committed serious enough crimes to warrant being deprived of the vote, any alternative line will not be of equal effectiveness. ... The provision is reasonably tailored insofar as disenfranchisement reflects the length of the sentence and actual incarceration, which, in turn, reflect the seriousness of the crime perpetrated and the intended progress towards the ultimate goals of rehabilitation and reintegration. Section 51(e) is not arbitrary: it is related directly to particular categories of conduct. The two-year cut off line also reflects several practical considerations. Further, since this Court gave the impression that it was up to a Parliament to do exactly this after the first Sauvé case..., there is a need for deference to Parliament in its drawing of a line. The analysis of social and political philosophies and the accommodation of values in the context of the Charter must be sensitive to the fact that there may be many possible reasonable and rational balances. Line drawing, amongst a range of acceptable alternatives, is for Parliament, ... Third, when the objective and the salutary effects are viewed in the totality of the context, they outweigh the temporary disenfranchisement of the serious criminal offender. The enactment of the measure is itself a salutary effect. The legislation intrinsically expresses societal values in relation to serious criminal behaviour and the right to vote in our society. Value emerges from the signal or message that those who commit serious crimes will temporarily lose one aspect of the political equality of citizens. Furthermore, the temporary disenfranchisement is perceived as meaningful by the offenders themselves and could have an ongoing positive rehabilitative effect. ... The statistical data mentioned by the Federal Court of Appeal indicate that the provision catches serious and repeat offenders and that most prisoners will only be deprived of participation in one election. Because the duration of the disenfranchisement is directly related to the duration of incarceration, a serious criminal offender may never actually be denied the opportunity to vote if there is no election during the time he is incarcerated. In light of the special context of this case - that the justification advanced by Parliament is rooted in a social or political philosophy that is not susceptible to proof in the traditional sense - deference is appropriate since the impugned provision raises questions of penal philosophy and policy. ...”