Prisoners’ Voting Rights: Supreme Court judgement
The decision of the UK Supreme Court on Prisoners’ voting rights, published on 16 October 2013, seems to me to be rather more nuanced than much of the media coverage I have read and heard.
The case which reached the Supreme Court involved two appeals, one from England (Chester) and one from Scotland (McKeoch). Only the Chester case invoked the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. Both cases also raised a question of EU law.
The issue under EU law arose from the focus in the EU on the core concerns of ensuring equal treatment between EU citizens residing in Member States other than that of their nationality, and so safeguarding freedom of movement within the EU. However, eligibility to vote in Member States is basically a matter for national legislatures, and a matter for each individual legislature to determine. In any event, the EU legal principle of non-discrimination would still not be engaged. Convicted prisoners serving their sentence are not in a comparable position to persons not in prison. Thus, in both cases, the Supreme Court held that EU law did not apply.
As regards the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, the Supreme Court noted that in a series of cases (Hirst (No 2) v UK, Greens v UK and Scoppola v Italy) the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) had held that a blanket prohibition of this nature is an indiscriminate restriction on a vitally important right and, as such, incompatible with Article 3 of Protocol No 1, the duty to hold free and fair elections.
Under the HRA, the Supreme Court is required to “take into account” decisions of the ECtHR, not necessarily to follow them. This enables the national courts to engage in a constructive dialogue with the ECtHR. However, the prohibition on prisoner voting in the UK has now been considered by the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR twice and, on each occasion, found to be incompatible with Article 3 Protocol 1. In these circumstances, it would have to involve some truly fundamental principle of law or the most egregious oversight or misunderstanding before it could be appropriate for the Supreme Court to refuse to follow Grand Chamber decisions of the ECtHR. The ban on prisoner voting is not, in the Supreme Court’s view, a fundamental principle of law in the UK, and the circumstances do not justify a departure from the ECtHR’s caselaw.
Thus contrary to some reporting, the Supreme Court has upheld the ECtHR’s view that the UK’s blanket ban on voting rights is incompatible with the European Convention. The Supreme Court did not issue a declaration of incompatibility, however, because that is a discretionary remedy; the Court had already issued such a declaration; the Government was undertaking work to respond to the initial declaration; it was not for the Court to say how the Government should ultimately resolve the matter; and that therefore, being a discretionary remedy, the Court would not exercise its discretion in this case.
So the ball is still very much in the Government’s court.
The full judgement of the Supreme Court and a press release prepared by the Court are available at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/news/latest-judgments.html
National Probation Service senior appointments: update
In August 2013, I noted that Mike Maiden had been appointed as the Director of the new Probation Service. He has withdrawn from the post for personal reasons. The Government has just announced that, in his place, Colin Allars, the current director of probation within the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), has been chosen to take up the new role. Sarah Payne’s appointment as director of the NPS in Wales is unaffected.
The Government announcement states: “the two will work together to lead the new service. It is due to launch in April 2014 and tasked with protecting the public from 30,000 of the most dangerous offenders in England and Wales each year…”
For more detail see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/director-of-new-national-probation-service-announced
National Crime Agency: open for business
The long awaited launch of the National Crime Agency occurred on Monday 7 October 2013. It brings together, in a single body, four formerly separate activities under four Command heads. These are:
Border Control Command, designed to increase security at border entry points.
Economic Crime Command covering a range of crimes including:
Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) Command which aims to protect children from sexual exploitation on the internet.
Organised Crime Command (OCC) which leads, supports and co-ordinates the national effort to identify, pursue and disrupt serious and organised criminals.
The Agency also contains the National Cyber Crime Agency, which aims to provide a joined-up national response to cyber and cyber-enabled crime.
Critics of this new initiative argue that this is largely a ‘re-branding’ exercise for pre-existing bodies with a rather underwhelming track record, which is also likely to struggle because it has had its funding cut. My view is that it is far to early to assume that this will be the case. The Agency has to have some time to establish itself before we can determine whether it is delivering the benefits planned for it.
There is quite a lot of information about the agency available on-line. Go to http://www.nationalcrimeagency.gov.uk/ and follow the various and varied links.
New ways of funding legal services – responding to cuts in legal aid. The Low Commission
Government cuts to the legal aid budget are making people who want to deliver legal services to the poorest in society think hard about how this can be done into the future. I have already noted that one law firm has created an Alternative Business Structure to enable it to use its profits from private client work to fund its social welfare advice work. See https://martinpartington.com/2013/08/
To get more general thinking going on this, the Legal Action Group has established a Commission under the chairmanship of Lord Low to develop a new strategic approach. It has recently published an important Consultation Document on which it is consulting until the end of September 2013.
As background, the Commission states: “For many people, having access to advice and legal support on Social Welfare Law issues is central to ensuring that they receive fair treatment at the hands of the state, when in dispute with an employer or when struggling with debt. This type of advice and support is currently provided by both the not for profit sector (for example, by organisations such as Law Centres or Citizens Advice Bureaux), through the private sector (solicitors) and occasionally via welfare rights units run by Local Authorities.
“These services are currently funded by both central and local government as well as by charitable trusts and the private sector. However, changes to the scope of legal aid as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 combined with other reductions in central and local government funding due to the period of austerity are threatening the provision of these services as never before.
“These cuts come at a time when advice agencies are seeing an increase in demand due to a combination of welfare reform, other austerity measures and the financial downturn.”
The aim of the Commission is “to develop a strategy for the future provision of Social Welfare Law services, which:
- meets the need for the public, particularly the poor and marginalised, to have access to good quality independent legal advice;
- is informed by an analysis of the impact of funding changes and by an assessment of what can realistically be delivered and supported in the future;
- influences the thinking and manifestos of the political parties in the run up to the 2015 election.”
In its Consultation Paper summary, the main components of the Commission’s strategy are::
- Legal aid should be viewed as part of a continuum including information, general advice, specialist advice, legal help and legal representation, rather than as a stand alone funding mechanism; the more we can do at the beginning of this spectrum, the less we should have to do at the end.
- By reducing demand, taking early action and simplifying the legal system it will be possible to reduce some of the need for advice and legal support.
- For those who can afford to pay, affordable advice and legal support should be more accessible and the routes into it much better communicated and understood.
- People with pressing problems need a simple and effective way of accessing good advice, without hurdles or confusion. Much basic provision can be developed using a combination of public legal education, national telephone helplines and websites, local advice networks and specialist support for front line advice agencies.
- More in-depth and intense support should be targeted at those most in need.
- Ensuring the quality of all levels of service provision must be a high priority
- We would like to see a more open and collaborative advice sector. There is considerable scope for local advice agencies to work more closely together and in some cases even to merge. We would also like to see the national advice services umbrella bodies work more closely together and share their resources and experience more widely
- The importance of advice and legal support on social welfare law to people’s lives, coupled with challenges to its continued provision and additional costs to government that are likely to result if no action is taken, makes it imperative that the next UK Government develops a National Strategy for Advice and Legal Support in England for 2015-20 and that the Welsh Government develops a similar strategy for Wales
- Local authorities should co-produce or commission local advice and legal support plans in conjunction with local not-for-profit and commercial advice agencies; these plans should review the services available, including helplines and websites, whilst targeting face to face provision to ensure that it reaches the most vulnerable and ensuring some resources are available for legal representation where it is most needed, to supplement the reduced scope of legal aid
- We estimate that currently, post the implementation of the 2012 Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act (LASPO), there is about £400m per year available to fund advice and legal support services- mainly coming from local authorities, the Money Advice Service and the legal aid that remains for social welfare law.
- We estimate at least a further £100m pa is required in order to ensure a basic level of provision
- We are calling on the next UK Government to provide half this extra funding by establishing a 10 year National Advice and Legal Support Fund of £50m pa, to be administered by the Big Lottery Fund (BIG), to help develop provision
- We propose this Fund should be financed by the Ministry of Justice, the Cabinet Office and the DWP, as the main creator of the need for advice and legal support (on the polluter pays principle)
- 90% of the Fund should be used to fund local provision, with 10% for national initiative.
- BIG should allocate the 90% share of the National Fund to local authorities, based on indicators of need, to help implement local advice and legal support plans, which should be prepared in conjunction with the local advice sector.
- We are also calling on other national and local statutory, voluntary and commercial funders to contribute a further £50m pa to help develop provision. These should include NHS clinical commissioning groups, housing associations, additional Money
Advice Service funding, charities, trusts and foundations and lawyer fund generation schemes, such as the interest on money held for clients and dormant accounts. - Most of our recommendations apply equally to Wales, but it will be important to build on the momentum resulting from the Welsh Government’s Advice Services Review published in May 2013.
A final report is due to be published at the end of 2013. it makes clear that legal aid budgets, as such, are unlikely to be restored so that alternative funding models must be developed.
Links to the full consultation report are at http://www.lowcommission.org.uk/Can-you-help
Legal aid – updating the book
When I was preparing the last edition of the book, in October 2012, the full details of how the legal aid scheme would work once the Legal Aid Agency had started its work, were not available. As a result of the changes that are now fully effective there is a number of points in the book that are now out of date.
1 The Funding Code (see p 273), under which the former Legal Services Commission operated, has been abolished. The new Legal Aid Agency works under the regulations that have been made under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. These include most importantly the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations 2012/3098, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/3098/contents/made; and the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013, see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/104/contents/made.
2 The Lord Chancellor’s priorities (p 273) are repealed and do not apply to the Legal Aid Agency.
3 Similarly the statement of Objectives for the Legal Services Commission (p 275) has been abolished and does not apply to the Legal Aid Agency
Alternative business structures – recent developments
Those coming new to the study of law are facing a rapidly changing legal profession. The ability to create Alternative Business Structures (ABS) is one of the factors driving this change. At present there is little in the way of organised research to enable students to find out what the impact of their creation is on the ways in which legal services are delivered. But the Legal Futures website (see links at the side of this page) is a good place to start finding out what is happening.
I last wrote about developments with ABS in March 2013. I was commenting on the report of the Solicitors Regulatory Authority on its first year of operation. I noted that the number of ABS licensed by the SRA was then over 100.
Since then, numbers have continued to rise. Now (August 2013) the current total is 183. And there are some big beasts waiting in the wings who have started the process of applying for a licence under the scheme. Most notable is the application by the Direct Line Insurance company – the largest motor insurer in the UK – to apply for an ABS licence. This has been done in partnership with a legal practice Paribas Law – which itself was one of the early firms to achieve an ABS licence.
At least part of the reason for Direct Line seeking to do this is that, with the abolition of referral fees (from which it derived a lot of income) it now wants to provide the legal services that arise out of accident claims itself.
But developments in the ABS are not limited to high profile applications such as Co-op Legal Services or BT or now DLG Legal Services (which is the commercial name being used by Direct Line in its application).
At the other end of the market a number of existing providers of legal services at the social welfare end of the market have been contemplating how ABS might help them sustain their services, facing as they are huge cuts in publicly funded legal aid. Leading the field here is the legal advice charity in Leicester, which in April 2013 became the first not-for-profit organisation to set up an alternative business structure (ABS). The Community Advice and Law Service (CALS) won approval to launch Castle Park Solicitors Community Interest Company, whose profits will go to support the continuing work of the charity.
Research carried out by Warwick University earlier this year suggested that around 20% of existing advice centres are likely to explore this option. It is far to early to conclude from this example that the ABS will fill the funding gap left by reductions in legal aid. But it does show that those lawyers who are dedicated to providing legal services to the poor are being innovative in the light of public expenditure cuts.
To date I have only commented on ABS approved by the SRA. But it should be remembered that the Council of Licensed Conveyances also has authority to license ABS applications for companies supplying conveyancing services. To date, 38 licences have been granted.
For information about ABS available in Legal Futures, see http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/tag/alternative-business-structures
For information about SRA licences see http://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/firm-based-authorisation/abs-register/register.page
For information about CLC licences see http://www.clc-uk.org/absregister.html
Police powers to stop and search – a consultation
The Government is currently engaged in a delicately choreographed exercise relating to the use by the police of their power to stop and search people.
Following the widespread riots that swept London and other major cities in the summer of 2011, there arose claims that one of the reasons why there was considerable distrust in many communities – especially ethnic minority communities – with the police arose from the use of stop and search powers. As a consequence, in December 2011 the Home Secretary commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) to carry out an inspection into the use of stop and search legislation in all 43 Home Office funded forces in England and Wales.
At the beginning of July 2013, the Home Secretary announced that she wanted to hold a consultation on the use of these power. There was no suggestion that the powers would be abolished. But the consultation was designed to get views from the public about how they should be used.
Just a few days later, HMIC published its report. it is very critical of police practice in this area. The headline conclusions, drawn from the Press Release, are:
Over a million stop and search encounters have been recorded every year since 2006; but in 2011/12 only 9% led to arrests. The police use of stop and search powers has been cited as a key concern for police legitimacy and public trust in most of the major public inquiries into policing since the 1970s. While there is much public debate about the disproportionate use of the powers on black and minority ethnic people, there has to date been surprisingly little attention paid – by either the police service or the public – to how effective the use of stop and search powers is in preventing and detecting crime.
The inspection, which included a public survey of over 19,000 people found that:
- the majority of forces (30) had not developed an understanding of how to use the powers of stop and search so that they are effective in preventing and detecting crime, with too many forces not collecting sufficient information to assess whether or not the use of the powers had been effective;
- 27% of the 8,783 stop and search records examined by HMIC did not include sufficient grounds to justify the lawful use of the power. The reasons for this include: poor understanding amongst officers about what constitutes the ‘reasonable grounds’ needed to justify a search, poor supervision, and an absence of direction and oversight by senior officers;
- there is high public support for the use of these powers, but this support diminishes when there is a perception that the police are ‘overusing’ them; and
- half of forces did nothing to understand the impact that stop and search had on communities, and less than half complied with the requirements of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 code of practice to make arrangements for stop and search records to be scrutinised by the public.
When all findings are considered, HMIC concludes that the priority chief officers give to improving the use of stop and search powers has slipped since the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report in 1999.
Notwithstanding these general findings, the report gives examples which show that use of stop and search powers has the potential to play an important role in the way the police prevent crime and catch criminals, whilst at the same time preventing unnecessary arrests. The proactive use of stop and search powers can lead to serious crimes being prevented and detected:
- East. Arrest of a predatory paedophile after police officers on routine patrol found a car with blacked-out windows parked in suspicious circumstances on an industrial estate. The driver tried to distract them from looking in the vehicle, which aroused further suspicion and the officers decided to search it, finding a 12-year-old girl who had been groomed for sex through social media. The offender was convicted and received a 17-year prison sentence.
- North East. Whilst officers were dealing with a collision on a motorway, they smelled cannabis in one of the vehicles and conducted a search of the car and the occupants, finding a large quantity of cannabis in bags and suitcases. Further enquiries led to a further seizure of approximately £400,000 worth of cannabis, and more arrests were made. The people involved were part of an organised group suspected of committing crime nationally.
- North. Routine patrol officers checked a car that was shown on police computer systems as associated with drug misuse. The officers’ suspicion was raised on speaking to the occupants and they conducted a search, which led to finding a large suitcase containing many unsealed bottles of liquid labelled as shampoo, which were subsequently found to contain over 30 kilos of high purity amphetamine, with an estimated street value in excess of £3 million.
The Government’s consultation on stop and search continues until 24 September 2013. Announcements on the outcomes of the consultation will appear later in the year.
All the information about the HMIC report is available at http://www.hmic.gov.uk/publication/stop-and-search-powers-20130709/
. You can follow the links to the press release, the full report and findings from individual police forces.
Details of the Home Office consultation is at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/stop-and-search
Compulsory voting? The experience in Australia
In Chapter 3 of the book, I raise the question of whether voting in elections should be made compulsory (p. 28). I note that this is already the law in Australia.
The up-coming Australian general election has caused a number of commentators to revisit this issue. The BBC News website carried a very interesting piece on just this question. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23810381.
The article makes a number of points worth noting:
- compulsory voting has been the law for the best part of a century;
- turnout in elections is very high – around 94%
- but penalties for non voting are not severe – a small fine;
- and many people avoid voting by not registering to vote;
- thus the ‘real’ turnout is not as high as the headline figure suggests;
- that compulsory voting is the law in 22 other countries but the law is enforced in only 10 of them.
The article quotes arguments for and against the position in Australia.
There is no suggestion that compulsory voting will be introduced in the UK. But I think it is an issue that should at least be raised for public debate. What do you think?
Improving the code of practice for victims of crime
The original code of practice for victims, though innovative at the time (2006), is now regarded as a bit out of date. The Government is currently working on a revised version. This will set out more clearly what different groups of victims should be entitled to expect. The new Code will contain sections on
- Entitlements for victim
- Duties for criminal justice agencies
- Entitlements to children and young people under 18
- Duties for criminal justice agencies for children and young people under 18, and
- Businesses
The new Code will also for the first time include restorative justice in the issues to be considered in relation to the victims of crime.
It will also propose changes to the ways in which complaints can be made when things are alleged to have gone wrong.
For more detail on the work so far, see https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/improving-the-code-of-practice-for-victims-of-crime
National Probation Service: appointments
The Government has made two key appointment in the process of creating the new National Probation Service.
Mike Maiden, former Chief Executive of Staffordshire and West Midlands Probation Trust, will undertake the role of Director of Probation, leading the National Probation Service in England.
Sarah Payne, current Chief Executive of Wales Probation Trust, will take up the post as Director National Offender Management Service (NOMS), Wales. Her role will also include overarching responsibility for public and private prisons and contractual oversight of private sector prison delivery in Wales.
They will lead a team of the country’s top offender managers, working with around 30,000 offenders each year who pose a high-risk of serious harm to the public.
The new directors will work alongside private and voluntary sector organisations who will be delivering rehabilitation services to low and medium risk offenders within 21 Contract Package Areas across England and Wales.4
They take up full responsibilities in April 2014.
For more detail go to https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-probation-service-appointments-announced

Martin Partington: Introduction to the English Legal System 15th ed 2021
Oxford University Press Learning Link Resources