Donate SIGN UP

Eu Court Backs Uk Decsion .....shocker!

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 11:54 Tue 06th Oct 2015 | News
16 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34450879
Nice to see that occasionally the European court backs UK!
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is a common sense outcome TTT...didn't really expect any other.
-- answer removed --
Well it would find that conclusion, its the French in the dock.

Wait until the UK is in it.
All is not quite as it may seem, 3Ts.

The court on this occasion was considering the case of a single appellant – a French murderer – who had been denied the right to vote in EU elections. He argued that the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights afforded him the right to vote and that right was being taken away. The ruling said that in his case the ban was justified and proportionate, bearing in mind the nature and gravity of his offence.

The ECJ ruled the EU Charter applies to the right of UK citizens, including prisoners, to vote in European Parliament elections. Any deprivation of that right by a state has to be proportionate and justified, and must take into account the nature and gravity of the criminal offence committed and the duration of the penalty.

In France only prisoners sentenced to five years or more are denied the vote. The UK has a blanket ban, no matter what the offence or the sentence and it is this that is being challenged. This means that it is open to prisoners in the UK who are EU citizens, especially those serving shorter sentences for less serious crimes to challenge the ban on them voting in elections to the European Parliament. This issue has still to be ruled on.
It is not cut and dry since there is a blanket ban on prisoners voting regardless of the sentence and it could be argued it is not proportionate in the case of a short sentence.
All sounds very subjective to me, barring any agreement on how to define what is and is not proportionate and justified. So presumably we can claim any crime requiring a gaol sentence means a ban on voting is proportionate and justified whilst the European Court can demand it isn't ?
Question Author
Mikey: "This is a common sense outcome" - surely common sense is illegal in the EU!
DB: "The report doesn't make a lot of sense really. " - back on familiar ground then !
YMB/NJ: ah, le frog is involved, thus the mystery is explained!
TCL: ".... it could be argued it is not proportionate in the case of a short sentence. " - not by any sane person TCL, removal of prviledges afforded to normal people is part of the punishment process.
Sorry TTT ! Its just that I am a big fan of common sense and this seems to have achieved it !
When it comes to voting, a pensioner gaoled because she would not pay a fine because she had no TV licence is treated the same as a mass murderer, is that proportionate?
Corby...do you thinks it is remotely doable, to have two great long lists of offenders...one where they can continue to vote and another where they can't ?

As I have understood it, being sentenced to a spell in prison means that a person's liberty has been removed from them temporarily and the privilege of being able to take part in the democratic process is part of that.
Question Author
yes TCL, think it through.
"When it comes to voting, a pensioner gaoled because she would not pay a fine because she had no TV licence is treated the same as a mass murderer, is that proportionate?"

You can be committed to custody for non-payment of any fines and the TV Licence offence is no different to any other in that respect. Why it is so frequently cited in that way is beyond me; it is no differeet to failing to pay a fine for speeding or being drunk and disorderly.

Of course the pensioner imprisoned for non-payment of fines will only miss out on, perhaps, one election at most (and more probably none at all). The mass murderer will be disenfranchised for considerably longer so proportionality to the offence exists.
The law recognises a difference in sentences when it comes to the need to reveal them when applying for employment. Why can the same approach not be taken when it comes to voting?
Question Author
no TCL, they're in the slammer end of
So it's okay to disregard certain periods in gaol when it comes to employment but not when it comes to a vote?
Question Author
I'm talking about prisoners voting rights, WT.F has that got to do with "employment"?

1 to 16 of 16rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Eu Court Backs Uk Decsion .....shocker!

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.