Search for: "People v. Hirst"
Results 41 - 56
of 56
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Sep 2010, 7:57 am
In the 2005 decision of Hirst No 2, the European Court held that Section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents prisoners from voting, is in breach of the electoral right under Article 1 of Protocol 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
30 May 2010, 2:32 am
On the face of it, it seems that government may finally act on this issue, five years after the European Court of Human Rights criticism of its ban in the case of Hirst v UK. [read post]
9 May 2010, 3:06 am
Ironically, Mr Hirst is still waiting for that just satisfaction as the UK have continued to bar prisoners from voting. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 9:44 pm
We posted recently on the continuing refusal of the UK Government to comply with the 2005 judgment of Hirst v UK, where the European Court held that the ban on prisoners voting in the UK was a breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights. [read post]
22 Apr 2010, 12:25 am
Four years ago, the European Court of Human Rights criticised the policy in Hirst v UK, which arose out of the 2002 case of R v Home Secretary ex parte Hirst. [read post]
14 Feb 2010, 8:58 am
In Hirst v UK(No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that denying prisoners the vote breached their human rights under Article 3 of the First Protocol of the European Convention.Lawyers acting for the prisoners seek to rely upon a US Supreme Court ruling which decided that the loss of the vote can result in an award of monetary damages by way of compensation. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 3:43 am
The group are seeking to remind the Government of the four year old judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v UK, which arose out of the 2002 case of R v Home Secretary ex parte Hirst. [read post]
22 Feb 2009, 10:43 am
To deny them this right would mean that they are being victimised, and would lead to claims for compensation costing the government many millions of pounds at a time when there is an economic downturn.Following the landmark judgment in Hirst v UK(No2), Cyprus, Iraq, and the Republic of Ireland, have granted prisoners the vote, and now Hong Kong is to follow suit.The petition has been filed with the Committee on Petitions, the specific point raised about the EU parliamentary… [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 8:26 am
Given that Membership of the EU is dependent upon Member States adhering to the Convention, does the UK intend to pull out of Europe or alternatively implement the ECtHR decision in Hirst v UK(No2)? [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 4:24 pm
CASE OF HIRST v. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 10:39 pm
In this case, it was Hirst v UK (No2). [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 1:39 pm
Monitoring the Government's Response to Human Rights Judgments: Annual Report 2008"Prisoners' voting rights (Hirst v UK)47. [read post]
24 Jul 2008, 1:31 pm
Next to Hirst: 836208. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 1:08 pm
It does not, in our view, affect the substance of Article 25, which is concerned with universal franchise and the free expression of the people in the choice of legislature. [read post]
6 Jul 2008, 11:02 pm
The consultation document notes that in Belgium those prisoners who receive a sentence of longer than 4 months are disqualified from voting; in Austria prisoners who are sentenced for a year or more are disqualified; in Italy prisoners serving 5 years or more are disqualified and in Greece all prisoners who are given a life sentence are permanently disenfranchised.33 The Government acknowledges that setting the threshold at which prisoners become disenfranchised may lead to inconsistencies and30 HL… [read post]
22 Dec 2006, 5:45 pm
Hirst Applegate, my friend Dale Cottam’s firm in Cheyenne, Wyoming is the other one). [read post]
