- Child killer Peter Chester gets tens of thousands in legal aid
- He raped and strangled his seven-year-old niece in 1977
- Now he wants the right for prisoners to vote
By Jack Doyle
|
Peter Chester, who was jailed for the rape and murder of his niece in 1977, has been granted tens of thousands in legal aid for his battle to gain the vote
A killer who raped and strangled his seven-year-old niece has been given tens of thousands of pounds in legal aid to demand the right to vote.
Peter Chester's lawyers argued in the Supreme Court yesterday that the UK's ban on prisoners voting breached his human rights and EU law.
The case in the country's highest court was given the go-ahead despite the Prime Minister's insistence that the voting ban will remain in place.
The case has already been heard twice in two other courts, costing taxpayers thousands.
Seven Supreme Court justices are conducting a two-day hearing that will finish today, with a judgment expected later this year.
Chester raped and strangled Donna Marie Gillbanks in Blackpool in 1977. He was given a life sentence the following year and has served 35 years behind bars.
A Scottish killer, George McGeoch from Glasgow, is also demanding voting rights in the same case, and has received legal aid amounting to 7,280.
He was jailed for life, with a minimum term of 13 years, for the 1998 murder of Eric Innes in Inverness.
In an unprecedented move, the Government's most senior law officer, Attorney General Dominic Grieve QC, will personally argue against the killers' case.
He is expected to tell the court today the decision on prisoners' voting rights should be left to Parliament, not judges.
MPs have voted overwhelmingly to keep the ban in place, making clear their opposition to a European Court of Human Rights ruling that it should be overturned.
That dates back to 2005 when John Hirst, a convicted axe killer, won his Strasbourg case on the grounds that the ban on voting breached his human rights.
The Government is to respond to that case with a Bill that will be considered by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament, but David Cameron has said the idea of giving convicts voting rights makes him 'sick', and told the Commons last year: 'No one should be in any doubt: prisoners are not getting the vote under this Government.'
Innocent: Donna Marie Gillbanks, who was raped and murdered at the age of seven at her home by Chester
Chester's case was dismissed by the Administrative Court in October 2009 and again by the Court of Appeal in November 2010.
Then, Lord Justice Laws said the issue was a matter for ministers: 'It is a political responsibility, and that is where it should remain.'
When details of the case first emerged, Chester's sister and his victim's mother, June Gillbanks of Blackpool, said: 'He gave up the right to vote when he strangled and raped my daughter. Prisoners have enough rights and victims very little.'
Dominic Raab, Tory MP for Esher and Walton, warned the case could be a 'backdoor' legal route to prisoners voting. EU law, which both men are citing, is, unlike Strasbourg judgments, enforceable by British courts.
He said: 'This is a dangerous backdoor attempt to use EU law to impose a left-wing doctrine of human rights, and we must resist it at all costs.'
Yesterday, Aiden O'Neill QC, for McGeoch, told the court that although the case was not a 'class action', it 'may have implications' for others.
It is feared that if the case is successful, taxpayers could be hit with compensation claims from inmates denied the vote.
The Legal Aid Agency said: 'Peter Chester was only granted legal aid after the Supreme Court gave permission for his case to be heard.
'Anyone who applies for legal aid must pass strict financial means and legal merits tests.
'The funding is being managed by a specialist team to ensure costs are carefully controlled.'
Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said: 'The Government has made its position absolutely clear – we believe prisoner voting is a matter for national parliaments to decide.
'The Attorney General will strongly defend that position at the Supreme Court.'
If the taxpayer has to pay, that means then... Again the poorest lose out as more cuts will have to be made. So, he'll bask in glory and compensation, while he takes from the mouths of children who will eventually, indirectly suffer! The money has to come from somewhere!
- Karen LL , England, 11/6/2013 02:19
Report abuse