For example, if you’re a few days away from release on a minor conviction, is it really fair to impose the bar? On the face of it, possibly, but that would ignore the problems we have in actually getting the deserving out of the door on parole – two people could go in at the same time for the same offence serving the same sentence, exhibit the same degree of remorse and rehabilitation and leave at different times simply because of the administrative burdens imposed on convening parole hearings. One gets released a few days before the GE, the other the day after the GE. Is that really fair when the release owes little to his actual crime?

Also, importantly, on the facts of that case the claimant (Hirst, now released, who blogs over at Jailhouslawyer), was convicted of manslaughter via diminished responsibility (loosely a lesser form of insanity). He had already served the punitive part of his custodial tariff. The only reason he was being retained was because he was viewed to be a threat to the public. The basis of claim was that as he was no longer there to be punished, it was disproportionate to deny him the vote.

You also couldn’t get a ECHR claim against the government for the failures of the prison service, because:

1. The Convention only covers human rights, not economic and social entitlements;

2. The appropriate challenge would be under European Union Law, and it would be a rather federalist move to suggest that prison policy should be within the legislative competence of that body.

As for the Armed Services, well we’ll see some potentially very interesting claims given the decisions earlier this year.

Thomas, we’re unlikely to get a serious discussion on Human Rights here in Britain because most commentators don’t even appear to know how the HRA actually works. How do you propose we “build on” the ECHR?