Can someone please briefly summarise (in words I can understand) of what happened in this case? Hirst v UK (2005)
The question which I have to answer is; explain why the decision in Hirst v UK 2005 has changed UK law on this point.
I have researched this case and it was delayed for 5 years because the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK putting a voting ban would be unlawful.
Judges took so long to decide this case until the 17/12/10, where it was held that prisoners who got less than 4 years in jail, would be able to vote, so no damage to democracy there.
Have I sumarised this case correct here in my opnion?
If not, please feel free to correct an errors/ pleae give me your advice/ feedback!
Thanks in ad, much appreciated
Hirst v UK ? Watch
- Thread Starter
- 23-12-2010 19:35
- 24-02-2011 23:50
hey sorry is this coursework for Bedfordshire Uni and how what kind of opinion have you formed?