In the matter of an application by Ciaran Toner and Hugh Walsh for leave to apply for Judicial Review
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Gillen J |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] NIQB 18 |
| Date | 02 March 2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Year | 2007 |
1
Neutral Citation no. [2007] NIQB 18 Ref:
GILF5770
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
2/3/07
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
_______
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
______
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY CIARAN TONER and
HUGH WALSH FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
_______
GILLEN J
[1] The applicants in this matter are sentenced prisoners. Mr Toner is due
to be released from custody on 11 April 2007 and Mr Walsh on 29 May 2007.
The application
[2] The applicants seek the following relief in an amended application
pursuant to Order 53 Rule 3 (2)(a)RSC(NI):
(a) A declaration that the disqualification on convicted prisoners voting
contained in Sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983
(“the 1983 Act”) does not apply to the forthcoming or any future election to
the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(b) A declaration that the applicants are entitled to vote in the forthcoming
and any future election in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(c) An order of mandamus directing the Secretary of State and Chief
Electoral Officer to take all such steps as are necessary to ensure that the
applicants are permitted to vote in the forthcoming and any future election
over the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(d) In the alternative to (c) above, an order of mandamus directing the
Secretary of State to vacate, or cause to be vacated, the date of 7 March 2007 as
the date of poll for the Northern Ireland Assembly and to substitute such
other date to so ensure that the applicants are entitled to vote at an election
for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
2
(e) Damages for breach of the applicants’ rights under the ECHR.
(f) A declaration that Article 4 of the Northern Ireland Assembly
(Elections) Order 2001 is not compatible with Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR
and should not be applied to the forthcoming or any future election to the
Northern Ireland Assembly.
A notice of incompatibility of subordinate legislation under Order 121
Rule 3A of the Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland) 1980 has been
served on the relevant Government department on the basis that the claim
gives rise to consideration of the compatibility of Article 4 of the Northern
Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 being whether the current
disenfranchisement of sentenced prisoners in Northern Ireland with respect
to Assembly elections is compatible with Article 3 of the Protocol 1 ECHR as
interpreted by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in
Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41.(“Hirst”)
Factual background
[3](i) The case made on behalf of the applicants is that they wish to be
included on the electoral register and wish to exercise their right to vote in the
forthcoming election to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 7 March 2007.
(ii) No special arrangements have been put in place either by the prison
authorities or the Electoral Office to advise prisoners of the registration
requirements or to make arrangements to facilitate registration.
(iii) By applications dated 31 January 2007 the applicants sought to be
included on the electoral register.
(iv) By correspondence dated 12 February 2007 the Electoral Office for
Northern Ireland replied to the solicitors on behalf of the applicants
indicating that Section 3 of the 1983 Act provided that during the period that
a convicted prisoner was detained in prison he is legally incapable of voting
and concluded therefore that the applicants were subject to a legal incapacity
to vote and could not be registered. The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern
Ireland (“CEO”) added that he did not consider that the effect of Sections 3
and 4 of 1983 Act left him with any room to reach a different decision under
the existing law. In addition he indicated that the register to be used to
determine entitlement to vote at the election on 7 March 2007 is the revised
register published on 2 February 2007. The “cut off date” for that register was
11 January. Only those whose applications were received on or before that
date and approved were included in the revised register. Accordingly, even if
To continue reading
Request your trial
6 cases
-
Xy V. The Scottish Ministers+the Lord Advocate+the Secretary Of State For Scotland
...the act complained of and the right said to be infringed. Reference was made to R v Secretary of State, ex partibus Toner and Walsh [2007] NIQB 18, per Gillen J. at para.9(viii)(c). An appeal against that decision had been refused by the Court of Appeal without a written opinion being issue......
-
R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another
...However the court made a Declaration of Incompatibility. 13In the other decision, before the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland ( Toner and Walsh [2007] NIQB 18) two convicted prisoners (again their status is unclear to me) sought, in the light of Hirst, inter alia a declaration tha......
-
Petition Of D.b.for Judicial Review Of Decision By Scottish Ministers
...explained above, is not a central factor in it. Rather, in essence, I have agreed with the decision of Gillen, J. in In Re Toner and Walsh 2007 NIQB 18 who, when faced with a request for a declaration that convicted prisoners were entitled to vote in the recent elections to the Northern Ire......
-
XY v Scottish Ministers, Lord Advocate and Secretary of State for Scotland
...between the act complained of and the right said to be infringed. Reference was made to R v Secretary of State ex p Toner and Walsh [2007] NIQB 18, per Gillen J at para 9(viii)(c). An appeal against that decision had been refused by the Court of Appeal without a written opinion being issued......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
The prisoner ’s right to vote and civic responsibility: Reaffirming the social contract?
...in Northern Ireland, by prisoners who were unable tovote in the March Northern Ireland Assembly elections, also failed (Toner andWalsh [2007] NIQB 18).The Government’s justification for the banSuccessive UK governments have taken the view that those who commit offencescan justifiably be d......