Euro judges 'will not have final say' on prisoner vote, vows Attorney General (as he hints of withdrawal from European court)

European judges will not have the final say on whether prisoners should be given the vote, the Attorney General said last night.

In a sign of the Government’s growing anger over prisoner voting, Dominic Grieve hinted that Britain could seek to limit the power of the European Court of Human Rights over the issue – and even withdraw from its jurisdiction altogether.

Last week MPs voted overwhelmingly to reject a ruling by the Strasbourg court that would end Britain’s historic ban on prisoners being allowed to vote – despite warnings it could leave taxpayers facing a compensation bill of more than £100million.

Speaking at an event in London organised by the think-tank Politeia yesterday, Mr Grieve acknowledged ministers faced a ‘conundrum’ over the issue.

But he insisted that the Strasbourg court would not automatically have the last word on the matter.

Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke has claimed Britain has no choice but to allow some prisoners the vote because it is bound by the judgments of the court.

But Mr Grieve said the court’s authority in the UK existed only because of past Parliamentary decisions, which could be reversed.

Critics have claimed that it would be impossible to pull out of the Strasbourg court’s jurisdiction without also leaving the EU. But Mr Grieve suggested that it could be achieved without serious consequences for Britain.

He added: ‘The European Court of Human Rights doesn’t have the last word. It only has the last word so far as Parliament has decided that it should.

‘We let it happen originally back in 1950. We could, if we wanted to, undo that – I think we should always bear that in mind – and actually undo it without some of the consequences we have over the EU.’

In the past, Mr Grieve has spoken out in favour of Tory plans for a British ‘Bill of Rights’ which would see domestic courts given precedence over Strasbourg. The idea was kicked into the long grass when the Coalition Government was formed last year.

But Mr Grieve’s comments suggest the idea could be revived to deal with the prisoner voting issue.

The Attorney General said British judges were also becoming alarmed by the way in which the ECHR has extended its jurisdiction.

He said: ‘The Government should be reassured that actually in some areas it has the support of many members of the judiciary, the national judiciary, who are concerned about this particular development.’

Mr Grieve took a neutral stance during last week’s landmark Commons debate on the issue.

But yesterday he indicated he was against the idea of giving prisoners the vote, adding: ‘Here is a decision by the European Court of Human Rights which is clearly not liked by the Prime Minister and virtually everyone else in Government I can think of, including myself.’

Meanwhile, Mr Grieve also shed fresh light on the political problems being experienced by both partners in the Coalition. He said the Liberal Democrats had embarked on a ‘remarkable experiment’ by deciding to ‘shed the support of people who are on the Left-wing of the spectrum of politics but couldn’t bring themselves to vote Labour’.

Mr Grieve said the Lib Dems were ‘suffering’ as a result of the move, adding that it was unclear whether they would eventually be given credit by voters for joining the Coalition.

But he said many Tories were also ‘extremely unhappy’ that the Coalition prevented the Conservatives from ‘pursuing some of the agendas which might be popular and appeal to their electorate’.


(2011-2-15/MailOnline)