Prisoners' claims for compensation rejected by the High Court (UK)

18 February 2011, United Kingdom. The High Court has struck out damages claims by almost 600 prisoners who complained that their rights were breached by the blanket ban preventing them from voting in elections. Mr Justice Langstaff ordered them to pay costs to the Ministry of Justice of £76 each.

Giving judgment in Tovey and Hydes v Ministry of Justice [2011] EWHC 271(QB), Mr Justice Langstaff said Tovey was the “first of a rapidly expanding cohort of prisoners” to issue a claim for compensation after they were prevented from voting in the general election.

Langstaff J said he had been told that 583 claims had been issued, including a claim by Paul Hydes, and 1,000 claims were anticipated. He said that Tovey’s claim was chosen as the ‘lead’ claim, but he served a notice of discontinuance last month and Hydes replaced him.

Hydes, who had no legal representation, claimed damages of no more than £5,000.

Langstaff J said there were “no reasonable grounds in domestic law for bringing a claim for damages or a declaration for being disenfranchised while a prisoner. Statute precludes it. Case law is against it. European authority is against the payment of compensatory damages in respect of it.”

Langstaff J said the fact the government had not acted to remedy the breaches of the convention identified in Hirst v UK and Greens and MT v UK did not, in itself, give rise to damages claims:

“Even if he (or the state) had acted to fulfil the UK’s obligations, it is far from certain that Mr Hydes himself would have had the vote, since there are many ways short of full prisoner enfranchisement which are capable of remedying the breach which Hirst identified.

“These are all matters of law. On the law, as it stands, the claim by Mr Hydes cannot hope to succeed. It must therefore be struck out.”

Langstaff J awarded the Ministry of Justice costs of £44,688 and ordered each prisoner claimant to pay the Ministry of Justice costs of £76 each apart from Tovey, who discontinued, and was ordered to pay £50.

Source of article: http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/