HRA

• Hirst v United Kingdom 2005

  Article 3 of Protocol 1 of ECHR - right to free elections

  ECHR ruled that UK’s blanket ban on prisoner voting was disproportionate

  Change: 2017- allowed prisoners on temporary release or home detention curfew to vote in local and national elections

  Significance: they’re disenfranchised
• Chester v Secretary of State for Justice 2013

  Shows that UK Supreme Court is limited when enforcing international human rights law as Parliamentary sovereignty is stronger leading to pressure on the UK Government no reform its policies

  Significance: minimal impact - didn’t franchise all prisoners. Small steps forward addressing ECHR’s concerns. Changes seen insufficient.
• Belmarsh Case

  Response to 9/11 -Anti terrorism, crime and security act 2001 was passed - gave powers to indefinite detention of foreign nationals suspected of terrorism

  Significance: government forced to amend - Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 - system of control orders

  imposed various restrictions

  seen as a compromise between protecting national security and respecting individual liberties