Teshome v The Lord President of the Council

Mr Justice Collins :

The claimant, originally from Somalia, sought asylum in Holland in 1986 and in 1995 was granted Dutch nationality. In 1997 he came to this country where he committed a murder of which he was convicted on 25 February 2000. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a tariff period of 14 years. When this claim was lodged in August 2012 he was still serving that sentence in this country but his tariff had been completed on 10 December 2012. Two days later he was deported to the Netherlands.

By letter dated 24 April 2012 solicitors on his behalf wrote what was described as a pre-action protocol letter to the Secretary of State for the Home Department complaining that he, as an EU citizen, had been wrongly deprived of his right to vote in local elections and elections to the EU Parliament. He sought an order that he should be permitted to vote, that legislation should be introduced to rectify the alleged incompatibility of Section 3(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 with EU legislation and damages for his disenfranchisement.

As was pointed out in the response to this letter, a similar challenge had been rejected by the Court of Appeal in R(Chester) v SSJ [2012] 1 WLR 1436 . By the time permission was considered by Lang J on the papers Chester’s case together with a case from Scotland, McGeoch v Lord President of the Council , were due to be heard by the Supreme Court. It was suggested that this claim be joined to those, but that would hardly have been feasible. Lang J decided that there were distinctions between this claim and the two before the Supreme Court (they each concerned British citizens) which meant it was “appropriate to grant permission at this stage” but a hearing should not take place until the Supreme Court had given judgment.

Lang J gave permission on 7 February 2013 by which time the claimant had left this country so that it was probable that this claim had become academic. As will become clear, the judgment of the Supreme Court given on 16 October 2013 shows that this claim is unarguable and totally without merit.

Both Chester and McGeoch were serving life sentences for murder. Chester’s claim relied on Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR as interpreted by the ECtHR in Hirst v UK (No 2) ( 2005) EHRR 849 . The decision in Hirst had led to a declaration of incompatibility by the Scottish Registration Appeal Court in Smith v Scott [2007] SC 348 but no steps had been taken by Parliament to amend the law