Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Mar 2001

Vol. 165 No. 18

Adjournment Matter. - Prisoner Voting Rights.

The matter on the Adjournment relates to a High Court decision of last year. A prisoner brought a case and it was found that, under the Constitution, prisoners are entitled to the right to vote.

Since then it appears that no action has been taken on the matter by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It may well be that some action has been taken, but nothing has entered the public domain. An important right has been established and the Department has always put it forward that the purpose of imprisonment was the denial of only one right, the right to liberty. All other rights of citizenship apply to the individual apart from that. The decision of the court supports that and clearly suggests that the right to vote, which is a fundamental right of all citizens, is now to be upheld where previously it was excluded. The right to vote is therefore established.

The Government has indicated there may be an appeal and I would be very disappointed if it decided to proceed in that manner. There is an onus on it to act and provide a franchise to those who have been excluded.

After his election as President of South Africa, one of Nelson Mandela's first acts was to extend the right to vote to all prisoners. It is desirable to establish this right here because it would mean that if prisoners had the vote politicians would take an interest in conditions of detention and visit prisons. Access to them is limited to senior members of the Judiciary and a few others, including the Archbishop and others who generally do not visit. It would also mean politicians at local or national level would have to explain what they intend to do to secure prisoners' votes. What proposals are being made to implement this right to vote that has been established by law? When will they be introduced? There could be an election at any time.

I am surprised at that remark.

The Government is almost four years in office. I do not recollect any Government staying in office to the end of its term. Given that the courts established this right to vote some months ago it would be wrong if the Government did not take action to ensure it could be implemented. Will it be implemented by means of a postal ballot or will each prison be declared a polling station? A census and register will be required. There are guidelines covering how local authorities deal with this aspect. It is important for the Department to ensure that every citizen has the right to vote in the next election.

I would like the House to acknowledge the presence of former Senator James Mulryan and members of his family in the Visitors Gallery.

I concur with the welcome to former Senator Mulryan, a distinguished County Louth man in business, politics and sport. He made a major contribution to the House and it is good to see him and his family.

The background to this matter is as follows. A prisoner in Wheatfied place of detention made an application to the High Court in relation to the right of prisoners to vote. The High Court delivered its judgment on the matter on 21 July 2000 and declared that the failure on the part of the State to provide for the applicant, as a citizen of the State among the prison population, and the necessary machinery to enable him to exercise his franchise to vote comprised a failure which unfairly discriminated against him and failed to vindicate the right conferred upon him by Article 40.1 of the Constitution to be held equal before the law.

The Attorney General has decided to appeal this judgment to the Supreme Court.

That is disgraceful.

I did not interrupt the Senator and I would like him to allow me to proceed to respond to him. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for me to comment on the grounds for this appeal.

Under the current electoral legislation there is no provision for prisoners to exercise their right to vote at any location other than the designated polling station for the area in which a prisoner was living prior to his or her incarceration. The Electoral Act, 1992, states: "Where on the qualifying date, a person is detained in any premises in legal custody he shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to be ordinarily resident in the place where he would have been residing but for his having been so detained in legal custody." The Senator and the House will appreciate there are valid operational security reasons why it would be impracticable for the Prison Service to provide a means by which prisoners could exercise their constitutional right to vote at their home polling station. It would be difficult to get everybody back to their stations and in some cases it might not be easy to establish them.

One alternative would be to provide for postal voting for prisoners. Other jurisdictions, including the UK, have provided for postal voting for them. In the case of the UK this is restricted to particular categories of prisoners, mainly those unconvicted or unsentenced.

The Electoral Act, 1992, sets out categories of voter for whom the provision of a postal vote is allowed, namely, diplomats and members of the Defence Forces and the Garda Síochána who are serving overseas. In addition, persons who are disabled and are living at home may apply for a postal vote. The Electoral Act, 1997, provides that where the circumstances of the elector's occupation or service of employment are such as to render it unlikely that he or she would be unable to go in person on polling day to vote at the polling station, the elector can apply for a postal vote. Third level students are included in this category.

Another alternative, which is also available in the UK, is to provide for the voting by prisoners by appointed proxy. In this case a proxy voter's card is sent to the appointed proxy. Once again this is only available to specific categories of prisoners, mainly those unconvicted or unsentenced. The current legal position and possible responses are under review and the issue of whether postal or proxy voting is appropriate and, if so, to whom it would apply, will form part of this consideration.

While the area of electoral legislation is primarily a matter for my colleague, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is considering the implications of the High Court judgment and will make an input into any response to resolve the issue. Pending the outcome of these considerations and the appeal to the Supreme Court, the Senator will appreciate that I am not in a position to elaborate further. I am sure that as a legislator, the Senator would be pleased to allow the Supreme Court have a clear analysis of the situation and make a final recommendation as to what legislative structure should be implemented to ensure that those unfortunate enough to be incarcerated during an election can vote or, failing that, to recommend other options.

This is similar to the Sinnott case where the State is making an appeal to the Supreme Court to deprive young people of their education. In this instance the State intends to make an appeal to deprive people of the right to vote. It is disgraceful.

The State has appealed the Sinnott case to ensure that we know the policy issues involved in providing education to the disabled.

The Minister of State knows that is not true.

The Seanad adjourned at 2.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 3 April 2001.

Top
Share