Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2)

Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (Application no. 74025/01) was a landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concerning the right of prisoners to vote. Delivered on 6 October 2005, the Court held that the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting in the United Kingdom violated Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees the right to free elections.

The case was brought by John Hirst, a prisoner serving a sentence for manslaughter. He argued that the UK's blanket ban, imposed by Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, was a disproportionate restriction on his right to vote.

The ECtHR found that the UK's ban was indiscriminate, applied to all prisoners regardless of the nature of their crime, the length of their sentence, or their individual circumstances. The Court acknowledged that states have a margin of appreciation in setting electoral laws, but that this margin was not unlimited. It determined that the blanket ban was not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and that it undermined the democratic credentials of the UK's electoral system.

The Hirst judgment sparked significant debate and controversy in the UK. Successive governments struggled to comply with the Court's ruling, facing political opposition to extending voting rights to prisoners. While some amendments were made to the law, a complete reversal of the blanket ban has not occurred.

The judgment has had implications beyond the UK, influencing the debate on prisoner disenfranchisement in other countries party to the ECHR. It remains a significant case in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, highlighting the importance of balancing the rights of individuals, even those who have committed crimes, with the broader interests of society. Subsequent case law has attempted to clarify the scope of the Hirst ruling and the permissible limitations on prisoner voting rights.