- The right of prisoners to vote in Great Britain is a complex and jurisdiction-specific issue, marked by a general prohibition for convicted individuals serving custodial sentences, with notable exceptions and a significant divergence in Scotland. While a blanket ban remains in place for most convicted prisoners in England and Wales, Scotland has enacted reforms to allow some prisoners to participate in devolved elections. The foundational legal framework governing this issue is the Representation of the People Act 1983, which disqualifies individuals convicted of a criminal offence and serving a sentence in a penal institution from voting in UK parliamentary and local elections in England and Wales. In England and Wales, the vast majority of convicted prisoners are barred from voting in any election. However, this prohibition is not absolute. The following categories of prisoners are eligible to vote:
a) Remand Prisoners: Individuals who are in custody awaiting trial or sentencing have the right to vote;
b) Civil Prisoners: Those imprisoned for non-criminal offences, such as contempt of court or non-payment of certain fines, retain their right to vote.
c) Prisoners on Home Detention Curfew (HDC) or Released on Temporary Licence (ROTL): Convicted prisoners who are released from prison on HDC or ROTL are able to vote.
Scotland has taken a different approach to prisoner enfranchisement for its devolved elections. The Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 extended the franchise to some convicted prisoners. Under this legislation, prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less are eligible to vote in:
i) Scottish Parliament elections
ii) Local government elections in Scotland
While the power to determine the franchise for Senedd Cymru (Welsh Parliament) and local elections is devolved to Wales, the law regarding prisoner voting currently mirrors that of England
The legal landscape of prisoner voting in the UK has been significantly shaped by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The landmark case of Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) in 2005 ruled that the UK’s blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court found that such an indiscriminate ban was disproportionate and that any restriction on voting rights must be for a legitimate aim and applied in a proportionate manner. The UK Government advised the ECHR that it would ignore the judgement (as it is entitled to do. Many European Governments regularly ignore the rulings of the ECHR, particularly as the ECHR has adopted the pernicious “Living Document” Doctrine which allows it to make up the law as it feels appropriate, regardless of what the signed convention says. This ruling and the adoption of the Living Document” Doctrine has led to a long-standing dialogue between the UK Government and European institutions and both the Conservative and Reform political parties have undertaken to leave the ECHR and abolish the Human Rights Act if they form a Government (A number of Labour MPs in 2025 have backed this move, despite this being contrary to the Labour Government policy.