ECHR ruling allowing prisoners the right to vote sparks debate over changes to the court

City litigators have questioned Justice Secretary Ken Clarke's calls to reform the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the wake of its ruling that serving prisoners should be given the right to vote.

In an interview with political commentator Andrew Marr over the weekend (20 February), Clarke said that there was a "good case for reforming the court", adding that he would look to address the ECHR's relationship with national courts when the UK takes over as chair of the Council of Europe this November.

His comments followed a number of controversial rulings from the ECHR, including its decision that prisoners should be allowed to vote, which the House of Commons chose not to uphold earlier this month when it elected to keep the ban on prisoner voting in place.

However, City lawyers are unconvinced that there is scope for substantial reform – particularly since Clarke maintains that the UK will continue to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and abide by ECHR rulings.

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer litigation partner Paul Lomas (pictured) said: "It is of no surprise that this issue has come up. It has been a part of Tory policy for a while; however, it is very difficult to actually reform the court even though there is a case for reform of the process.

"The ECHR is overloaded so there is a backlog of cases and some of the judgments have expanded the scope of the rights, perhaps sometimes devaluing the currency, which is very dangerous. But just how Clarke could bring about change – fundamental change – is unclear. It will be a very slow process."

Allen & Overy litigation partner Peter Watson added: "Clarke is very vague. He talks of there being a groundswell of opinion that the court needs reform but also talks of the court reforming itself. I'm sure that any court or body of judges that felt they were being interfered with, particularly by politicians, would be in uproar – with other sets of politicians egging them on.

"Of course, the ECHR should be insulated from the interests of national courts but perhaps it should also be more sympathetic to the national context."

XXIV Old Buildings' Alan Steinfeld QC said: "The basic problem people have with the ECHR is the standard of the judiciary. In this country we are used to having very distinguished, learned judges who have been appointed to their position because of their immense experience, whereas some argue a lot of the ECHR judiciary are undistinguished lawyers with not enough experience. I think this is where the dissatisfaction with some of the courts' decisions stems from and the reason behind the call for reform."

For more, see: