Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2005) 42 EHRR 41

Facts

• Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to free elections, permitting some limitations if justified and proportionate.
• The applicant in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) was a prisoner serving a life sentence who challenged the UK’s law imposing a total prohibition on voting for incarcerated individuals.
• The UK’s electoral law imposed a blanket ban on all convicted prisoners voting.
• Similar issues arose in subsequent cases: R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and Moohan v Lord Advocate, concerning the compatibility of prisoner voting bans with Article 3 of Protocol 1, and specifically relating to UK and Scottish elections.
• The UK government has not fully complied with the ECtHR’s findings, with ongoing debates about possible reforms and continued resistance grounded in public opinion and penal objectives.

Issues

1. Whether Article 3 of Protocol 1 permits a state to impose a complete ban on voting rights for all serving prisoners.
2. Whether the UK’s blanket prohibition on prisoner voting achieves a legitimate and proportionate balance between penal objectives and democratic rights.
3. Whether decisions in subsequent UK cases, such as Chester and Moohan, align with the ECtHR’s interpretation of Article 3 of Protocol 1.
4. Whether the continued implementation of a blanket ban is consistent with the UK's obligations under the ECHR following the ECtHR’s judgments.

Decision

• The ECtHR found that the UK’s universal ban on prisoner voting was excessive and violated Article 3 of Protocol 1.
• The Court held that while states may impose restrictions on voting rights, any interference must be justified, proportionate, and based on careful examination of circumstances, not simply status as a prisoner.
• The rationale of punishment, public confidence, and legal order could not justify a blanket ban without assessment of individual situations or offence seriousness.
• The Court required legal reform to provide case-by-case evaluation of prisoner voting rights.
• Subsequent domestic and international cases confirmed the incompatibility of broad prohibitions with the ECtHR’s standards.

Legal Principles

• Article 3 of Protocol 1 guarantees the right to free and fair elections but permits certain restrictions if legitimate and proportionate.
• Blanket restrictions that do not consider individual circumstances or offence types are not compatible with the requirement of proportionality under the ECHR.
• States must ensure limitations on electoral rights are precisely justified and carefully tailored to legitimate aims.
• ECtHR rulings obligate contracting states to adjust domestic laws to provide rights-compliant, case-specific frameworks.

Conclusion

The ECtHR’s decision in Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2), reinforced by later cases, established that the UK’s indiscriminate ban on prisoner voting was in breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1. The judgment requires states to replace blanket prohibitions with proportionate, individualized assessments and to enact legislative changes that respect their Convention obligations.