## Facts

- John Hirst, a British national, was serving a discretionary life sentence for manslaughter and remained detained after expiry of his tariff.
- While detained, Hirst was barred from voting by a statutory rule disenfranchising convicted prisoners in detention under § 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
- Hirst challenged the ban domestically; the claim was dismissed and the ban remained in force.
- He applied to the European Court of Human Rights alleging that the blanket ban violated Protocol No. 1, Article 3 (right to free elections), and raised additional claims under Articles 14 and 10.
- A Chamber found a violation of Protocol No. 1, Article 3; the government obtained referral to the Grand Chamber.

## Issues

1. Whether a general, automatic, and indiscriminate statutory ban on voting by convicted prisoners in detention is compatible with Protocol No. 1, Article 3.
2. Whether the state’s margin of appreciation in electoral regulation permits maintaining a blanket prisoner disenfranchisement rule without individualized assessment.
3. Whether separate issues required determination under Articles 14 (non-discrimination) and 10 (freedom of expression).

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held, by 12 votes to 5, that the UK’s blanket disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners in detention violated Protocol No. 1, Article 3.
- The Court concluded the restriction was general, automatic, and indiscriminate, applying regardless of sentence length, offense type, or personal circumstances.
- The Court accepted that protecting the electoral system and supporting civic responsibility may be legitimate aims, but found the measure lacked a proportionate connection to those aims.
- The Court found no need to examine separately the complaints under Articles 14 and 10 given the Article 3 violation.
- The ruling did not require enfranchisement of all prisoners; it required that any restriction be justified and proportionate rather than automatic and indiscriminate.

## Legal Principles

- Protocol No. 1, Article 3 protects the right to participate in free elections as a core democratic guarantee; limits on the franchise require careful scrutiny.
- States have a wide margin of appreciation in electoral matters, but it is not unlimited; restrictions must not impair the essence of the right to vote.
- A voting restriction must pursue legitimate aims and be proportionate, with a rational connection between means and ends.
- A general, automatic, and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners in detention falls outside the permissible margin of appreciation.
- A blanket removal of voting rights without individualized or category-based legislative assessment of proportionality is incompatible with Protocol No. 1, Article 3.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber held that the UK’s statutory rule automatically disenfranchising all detained convicted prisoners violated Protocol No. 1, Article 3 because it imposed an indiscriminate restriction on the franchise without proportionate justification, while leaving states discretion to impose tailored voting restrictions.


Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2), App. No. 74025/01, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Oct. 6, 2005)