Affiliation:
1. Reader, Newcastle Law School (UK). My thanks to Greg Davies (Cardiff University), Aoife O'Donoghue (Durham University), Christopher McCorkindale (University of Strathclyde), Hélène Tyrrell (Newcastle University) and Ian Ward (Newcastle University) for their advice and comments upon earlier drafts of this article. All hyperlinks have been updated as of 1 February 2021. Any errors remain my own.
Abstract
Between late 2017 and 2018 the United Kingdom and the Council of Europe called a truce over prisoner voting rights, and almost no one noticed. No bells rang out, no triumphal debate took place in Westminster. All protagonists had long since exhausted their energies or, at least, turned their attentions to the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union. This article evaluates the “Lidington Compromise”, by which the UK Government moved to enfranchise day-release prisoners, alongside Scottish and Welsh Parliaments opening up new aspects of the confrontation by moving to enfranchise some prisoners on the basis of sentence length. It assesses the significance of these moves in the context of devolution. It also examines how these different approaches to resolving the prisoner voting issue square with the Strasbourg Court's jurisprudence and the extent to which different understandings of democratic rights now prevail across the United Kingdom.
Publisher
Edinburgh University Press
Subject
Law,History,Cultural Studies
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献