Sewing Recommendations For Beginner?
ChatterBank0 min ago
Eu Court Backs Uk Decsion .....shocker!
16 Answers
http://
Nice to see that occasionally the European court backs UK!
Nice to see that occasionally the European court backs UK!
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
All is not quite as it may seem, 3Ts.
The court on this occasion was considering the case of a single appellant – a French murderer – who had been denied the right to vote in EU elections. He argued that the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights afforded him the right to vote and that right was being taken away. The ruling said that in his case the ban was justified and proportionate, bearing in mind the nature and gravity of his offence.
The ECJ ruled the EU Charter applies to the right of UK citizens, including prisoners, to vote in European Parliament elections. Any deprivation of that right by a state has to be proportionate and justified, and must take into account the nature and gravity of the criminal offence committed and the duration of the penalty.
In France only prisoners sentenced to five years or more are denied the vote. The UK has a blanket ban, no matter what the offence or the sentence and it is this that is being challenged. This means that it is open to prisoners in the UK who are EU citizens, especially those serving shorter sentences for less serious crimes to challenge the ban on them voting in elections to the European Parliament. This issue has still to be ruled on.
The court on this occasion was considering the case of a single appellant – a French murderer – who had been denied the right to vote in EU elections. He argued that the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights afforded him the right to vote and that right was being taken away. The ruling said that in his case the ban was justified and proportionate, bearing in mind the nature and gravity of his offence.
The ECJ ruled the EU Charter applies to the right of UK citizens, including prisoners, to vote in European Parliament elections. Any deprivation of that right by a state has to be proportionate and justified, and must take into account the nature and gravity of the criminal offence committed and the duration of the penalty.
In France only prisoners sentenced to five years or more are denied the vote. The UK has a blanket ban, no matter what the offence or the sentence and it is this that is being challenged. This means that it is open to prisoners in the UK who are EU citizens, especially those serving shorter sentences for less serious crimes to challenge the ban on them voting in elections to the European Parliament. This issue has still to be ruled on.
Mikey: "This is a common sense outcome" - surely common sense is illegal in the EU!
DB: "The report doesn't make a lot of sense really. " - back on familiar ground then !
YMB/NJ: ah, le frog is involved, thus the mystery is explained!
TCL: ".... it could be argued it is not proportionate in the case of a short sentence. " - not by any sane person TCL, removal of prviledges afforded to normal people is part of the punishment process.
DB: "The report doesn't make a lot of sense really. " - back on familiar ground then !
YMB/NJ: ah, le frog is involved, thus the mystery is explained!
TCL: ".... it could be argued it is not proportionate in the case of a short sentence. " - not by any sane person TCL, removal of prviledges afforded to normal people is part of the punishment process.
Corby...do you thinks it is remotely doable, to have two great long lists of offenders...one where they can continue to vote and another where they can't ?
As I have understood it, being sentenced to a spell in prison means that a person's liberty has been removed from them temporarily and the privilege of being able to take part in the democratic process is part of that.
As I have understood it, being sentenced to a spell in prison means that a person's liberty has been removed from them temporarily and the privilege of being able to take part in the democratic process is part of that.
"When it comes to voting, a pensioner gaoled because she would not pay a fine because she had no TV licence is treated the same as a mass murderer, is that proportionate?"
You can be committed to custody for non-payment of any fines and the TV Licence offence is no different to any other in that respect. Why it is so frequently cited in that way is beyond me; it is no differeet to failing to pay a fine for speeding or being drunk and disorderly.
Of course the pensioner imprisoned for non-payment of fines will only miss out on, perhaps, one election at most (and more probably none at all). The mass murderer will be disenfranchised for considerably longer so proportionality to the offence exists.
You can be committed to custody for non-payment of any fines and the TV Licence offence is no different to any other in that respect. Why it is so frequently cited in that way is beyond me; it is no differeet to failing to pay a fine for speeding or being drunk and disorderly.
Of course the pensioner imprisoned for non-payment of fines will only miss out on, perhaps, one election at most (and more probably none at all). The mass murderer will be disenfranchised for considerably longer so proportionality to the offence exists.
1 to 16 of 16
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
This Is A Bit Alarming - Rise In Strokes...
News45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.