Proceeding contribution from Dominic Grieve (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 10 February 2011. It occurred during Backbench debate on Voting by Prisoners.
Voting by Prisoners
The hon. Gentleman knows the conventions in government—one of which is that Law Officers' advice, and whether it has been sought and what they have advised, is not published. I can say two things, however. First, I have sought to explain something of the legal framework. As for the questions about Greens and M.T. and Frodl, read on its own the Frodl judgment would suggest that judicial discretion was required. Subsequently however, Greens and M.T. does not appear to insist on judicial discretion. Judicial discretion appears to have particularly exercised people in this country, because they do not think the judges should necessarily make such a determination. In those circumstances, although the House might wish to look at judicial discretion issues—and it has been suggested that that might be a way of dealing with those who fell below a benchmark for normally being allowed to retain the vote—that is not necessary.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 523 c525
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Human rights Judgements European Court of Human Rights Prisoners Voting rights
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:51:06 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_714645
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_714645
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_714645