A convicted rapist has launched a legal bid to get prisoners the vote in time for May's elections.

Robert Greens won a case last year in the European Court of Human Rights demanding the UK give inmates the vote.

The Strasbourg court gave the UK six months to change the law.

But Greens is appealing the verdict to try to force the UK government to change the law before May's Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland elections and local elections in England.

He is attempting to obtain a tougher ruling against British ministers and has applied for the case to be referred to the grand chamber of the European Court.
Blanket ban

Greens' legal team want the court to tell the British government exactly how the law should be changed to allow prisoners to vote, and to change it in time for him to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections on May 5.

Greens' solicitor, Tony Kelly, said: "We want the government to bring in legislation to give prisoners the vote tomorrow."

The application for the referral will be considered by a panel of five judges at the Strasbourg court.

It suspends the original judgement which demanded the UK bring forward proposals to change the law within six months.

Robert Greens, who was convicted of raping a Dutch student at Rosslyn Chapel near Edinburgh in 2005, brought the original case with another prisoner referred to as MT.

Both were refused the vote in the 2008 European Parliament elections.

Last year the government said it would introduce legislation to allow offenders sentenced to a custodial sentence of less than four years to retain the right to vote.

But earlier this month the House of Commons voted to keep the current blanket ban on prisoner votes in place.

In 2005 the European Court of Human Rights upheld a ruling that Britain's ban on prisoner's voting was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, in a case brought by another prisoner - John Hirst.

Ambassadors at the Council of Europe's decision making body - the Committee of Ministers - will discuss the Hirst case in March.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12535440

That's interesting to me, cos it wouldn't have gotten much attention if he'd just been a burglar, but at the same time he's just about the worst person who could be asking for more rights...

personally IMHO and MHOO

all persons convicted and sentenced to prison should have all of their personal rights suspended until the completion of that sentence
that does not mean our duty of care under the HR act is diminished for their welfare
but any personal access to rights for those sentenced are suspended for the duration of the prison sentence ...

I don't see why prisoners shouldn't get the vote.

TBH I loved the irony in Cameron's statement that "democratically elected lawmakers" should decide who gets to vote. Er, you're not democratically elected to those who are disenfranchised are you, you pillock!

There's an argument to be made that if prisoners do not get the vote, then politicians will conceivably not care for the conditions inside prisons.

I'm slightly surprised that no one has said 'Ok, prisoners have the right to vote, we're just not going to let anyone incarcerated out to go near a polling station'.

Seems sensible to me.

Thousands of people lose their jobs to penny pinching at Whitehall. Government prepares to waste millions of pounds pointlessly denying the vote to a constituency that would probably only bother to return a few thousand ballots per election.

Bloody good point.

Might even raise a bit of interest in life outside. I imagine it's easy to lose perspective when your shut away, and that's a truly bad thing in both the short and long term.

+1