Votes for prisoners 'good example' of need for human rights laws, Lady Hale says

Lady Hale, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, has said the issue of votes for prisoners is a "good example" of why the UK needs human rights laws.

While insisting that she has "no personal view" on the issue, Lady Hale's words could anger some right-wing Conservative MPs. The prime minister famously said the prospect of prisoners voting made him "sick in the stomach".

Delivering the Warwick Law Lecture, Lady Hale said: "It is not at all obvious that the franchise should be decided only by those elected under the present franchise. Parliament is rightly proud that it represents and is accountable to the people. But members elected under the present franchise do not represent, and are not accountable to, the people who are currently disenfranchised.

"The purpose of any human rights protection is to protect the rights of those whom the majority are unwilling to protect: democracy values everyone equally even if the majority do not."

Lady Hale said there was "clearly no prospect" of the Supreme Court persuading the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights to modify its approach on votes for prisoners, as it had done over hearsay evidence in criminal trials, so there could be "no more meaningful dialogue".

Lady Hale said there were "many voices" raised against the Human Rights Act.

"Sections of the press and media have always been hostile, perhaps not surprisingly, as it was seen as a threat to press freedom from the outset.

"But this has been fuelled by a perception that it has prevented us from sending some dangerous foreigners back to their home countries and generally allowed people with no right to be in this country to stay here once they have established a private or family life here.

"Not every member of the public is persuaded that we should not export people if there is a real risk that they will be tortured in the country to which we send them. Perhaps not every member of the public is convinced that we should not deprive British children of their right to live and grow up and be educated here if this will be the effect of deporting their only or primary carer.

"Some parliamentarians and commentators are concerned about the perceived threat to parliamentary sovereignty, despite the clever and careful structure of the Act, which most people support.

"Many are concerned about what they see as the imperialism of the Strasbourg court. There is indeed a serious debate in Strasbourg itself about the limits to its evolutive approach. Some critics are simply hostile to anything European."

Referring to justice secretary Chris Grayling's promise that the government would scrap the Human Rights Act, the deputy president warned that it was not clear what a "fresh beginning" would entail.

She said that once "Pandora's box" was opened, the range of options would not be limited to doing nothing or having a "bigger and better UK Bill of Rights".

Lady Hale said repealing the Act and replacing it with nothing would take the UK back to the constitutional position before it was passed, but would raise "all sorts of interesting questions about the effect of the decisions which have been made during the period while the Act was in force and whether the common law would now embrace many of the rights which were established during that time".