R (CHESTER) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE

R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice



R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice

This case worried a detainee who directed for judicial reconsider of a conclusion denying listing him in the Electoral Register and, thus, rejecting him the right to ballot in an election. C had conveyed the proceedings to protect his right to ballot in a future election by which time new legislation would be location to deal with the claimant's.

The court held that where a United Kingdom court had made a affirmation of incompatibility pursuant to part 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 pertaining to legislation and where the Government was in the method of putting ahead legislation to Parliament and no farther vindication of the claimants privileges was essential, the court would not workout its discretion so as to make a farther affirmation of incompatibility in esteem of the identical or alike legislation.

Where a United Kingdom court had made a affirmation of incompatability pursuant to s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 in esteem of legislation and where the Government was in the method of putting ahead legislation to Parliament and no farther vindication of the claimants privileges was essential, the court would not workout its discretion so as to make a farther affirmation of incompatability in esteem of the identical or alike legislation.

Burton J so held in the Administrative Court of the Queen's Bench Division, when brushing aside the assertion of the claimant, Peter Chester, a detainee at HMP Wakefield, who had assisted the smallest period of a life judgment for the rape and killing of his niece, but who had been detained in jail after a Parole Board finding that he was too unsafe to issue into the community (a post-tariff lifer). The claimant's assertion ...