Hirst v. United Kingdom

John Hirst (plaintiff), a citizen of the United Kingdom (defendant), pleaded guilty to manslaughter in 1980 and was sentenced to a term of discretionary life imprisonment. The portion of Hirst’s sentence relating to retribution and deterrence (i.e., the tariff) expired in 1994, but the parole board recommended Hirst’s continued detention because Hirst presented a risk of serious harm to the public. Section 3 of the United Kingdom’s Representation of the People Act 1983 barred Hirst and other incarcerated individuals from voting in parliamentary or local elections. Section 3’s disqualification from voting generally applied to convicted people serving their sentences in penal facilities, except those imprisoned for minor defaults or contempt of court. Hirst brought an action in the United Kingdom seeking a declaration that section 3’s blanket prohibition on voting was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention). The divisional court upheld the validity of section 3 and dismissed Hirst’s claim. Hirst’s request for permission to appeal was refused. Hirst then filed a petition with the European Court of Human Rights, challenging section 3 under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 of the convention. That section of the convention provided that contracting states under the convention were required to hold free elections at reasonable intervals under conditions that ensured the free expression of people’s opinions and choices in legislative elections. The chamber found that section 3’s exclusion of detained prisoners from voting was disproportionate because the exclusion applied automatically and led to arbitrary results. The United Kingdom appealed to the Grand Chamber, asserting that the right to vote is not absolute and that countries must be given discretion to determine the conditions under which voting occurs.