[2010] EWCA Civ 1439

R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439



R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439

Introduction

In recent years, various efforts have been made to reflect the law on equal treatment and protection of minority shareholders in the facts that undermine this equality of treatment. The constitutions of the nineteenth century account for the change to be an experience under governmental administration right. The enjoyment of such rights or have been limited in context and, where applicable, compliance reserved certain requirements. The right of suffrage is the right of citizens to participate in the electoral process. Participation in elections can be exercised in two ways: through the vote, which is the right to vote for representatives, or by passive suffrage, which is the right to stand for election for election representative. However, legal laws of UK restrict the right of criminal to vote under current statutory rules.

Case of Chester versus Secretary of State for Justice highlights the constituent of case challenging the Government's blanket ban on prisoners voting rights. Currently, under UK legal system, criminals and offenders are not entitled to participate in electoral or vote for their representative (Allen, 2011).

Case Description - The Facts

The case EWCA Civ 1439 was filed by the legal representative of Chester against the Secretary of State for Justice. This case was made as proponent to other cases that resulted in questioning the applicability of fair and justified voting by limiting the rights of penalized persons from participating in the voting.

The appellant in the court, Peter Chester was convicted as a criminal for raping her niece and her murder. He was convicted as a murderer on Mar 1, 1978; judge sentenced him life imprisonment. He currently does not have right to appeal the court for reconsidering his punishment since the period for the deterrence and retribution has expired. Parole board decided to detain him in the custody due to his aggressive and violent behavior, for the reason of danger to society (Dismore, 2010).

From the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, Electoral Services Officer reported him on April 28, 2005 that he is not eligible to exercise his voting rights in any elections that are to be held in the United Kingdom. In response to the ban on voting rights, Chester's solicitors filed an application to the Ministry of Justice for the confirmation related to appellant's right to vote in coming European elections. The Ministry replied on Aug 5, 2008 stating that under current legislations related to right of voting for criminal he is not entitled to cast his vote in elections. However, Ministry agreed that that blanket by the UK government is not compatible with the Article P1-3; with emphasis on the legal provision related to voting rights in contiguous states (RCJ, 2010). Ministry did not highlight the timeframe required to amend the legal rule to provide material statutory provisions.

In response to this, appellant's filed a claim form on 23 December 2008 to obtain legal rights under ...