Moohan, Re Judicial Review [2013] ScotCS CSOH_199 (19 December 2013)

Moohan, Re Judicial Review [2013] ScotCS CSOH_199 (19 December 2013)

A3P1 ECHR does not apply to referendums, only to elections for the legislature. Article 10 ECHR does not protect the right to vote. There is no clear and constant Strasbourg jurisprudence extending these rights to referendums. The Franchise Act's blanket ban on prisoner voting in the independence referendum is not unlawful under ECHR, common law, or international obligations.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_199
Parties
Petitioner: Leslie Moohan; Petitioner: Gary Gibson; Petitioner: Andrew Urquhart Black Gillon; Respondent: Scottish Government
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Prisoner Voting Rights, Referendum Franchise, ECHR Compliance, Rule of Law, Fundamental Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leslie Moohan

Petitioner

Gary Gibson

Petitioner

Andrew Urquhart Black Gillon

Petitioner

Scottish Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Is the blanket ban on convicted prisoners voting in the Scottish Independence Referendum unlawful under ECHR, common law, or EU law?
  2. 2 Does Article 1 of Protocol 3 (A3P1) ECHR apply to referendums?
  3. 3 Does Article 10 ECHR protect the right to vote in referendums?

Ratio Decidendi

A3P1 ECHR does not apply to referendums, only to elections for the legislature. Article 10 ECHR does not protect the right to vote. There is no clear and constant Strasbourg jurisprudence extending these rights to referendums. The Franchise Act's blanket ban on prisoner voting in the independence referendum is not unlawful under ECHR, common law, or international obligations.

Court Disposition

petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Petitions for judicial review refused
  • No declaration of incompatibility or striking down of Franchise Act provisions