As Jo explains, there are serious (fatal) difficulties lying in the way of anyone seeking to challenge in our courts the resumption of Parliament without adequate measures to allow vulnerable and shielding MPs to participate and vote. But could the ECHR help?
Article 3 protocol 1 provides (broadly) that all citizens have the right to vote for their legislatures.
And in Demirtas v Turkey last year the Strasbourg court (ECtHR) held that Turkey breached that provision when it held an MP in extensive pre-trial detention when no reason was given for refusing bail.
(Link to judgment here: skip to para 217 - there were a lot of other issues.) hudoc.echr.coe.int/spa#%7B%22item…
But note (a) there may well be a difference between a case where a State actively prevents an MP from attending parliament by locking him up and a case where it just doesn’t provide the facilities enabling her to do so given her own difficulties.
On the other hand, in this day and age, it would appear to be pretty objectionable for a State to deny facilities for (say) disabled access to an MP who was in a wheelchair. And this is arguably comparable.
Note (b) there is a wide margin of appreciation here (ie ability of a State to balance competing considerations and reach a view). But NB too that the ECtHR makes the point (in effect) that Turkey appeared not to have conducted that exercise at all.
Which raises the question of whether we have conducted such an exercise, and what the reasoning actually is.
So a possible pathway to a ECtHR case, but a number of legal issues to address.
PS this thread shows that if the ECtHR finds that A3P1 is engaged (see note (a)) the UK may be on tricky territory in showing a reasoned justification for interference.
