Boyle and Rice v The United Kingdom: ECHR 27 Apr 1988

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
The first applicant had been convicted and sentenced for murder and subsequent acts of violence within prison. Whilst in prison he discovered an aptitude for writing and sculpture. Whilst on a special regime he was given certain privileges, but was then transferred to a standard regime pending his release on licence, losing those privileges. He complained that a letter had been stopped on the ground that it might be published. The second applicant also complained aboiut the reading of private correspondence by the prisons.
Held: The stopping of the letter did infringe the first applicant’s human rights. A claim could be considered by the court even though it had been dismissed by the Commission. The remedies available to him for these breaches were adequate, and the facts of the case disclosed no violation of Article 13 .
Times 13-May-1988, 9659/82, 9658/82, [1988] ECHR 3
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Human Rights
CitedAirey v Ireland ECHR 9-Oct-1979
Family law proceedings such as judicial separation do give rise to civil rights. In complex cases article 6 might require some provision for legal assistance, the precise form being a matter for the member state. The Court reiterated the importance . .

Cited by:
CitedMcGlinchey and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Apr-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 3 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award
A prisoner was admitted but with a heroin addiction. Through various mistakes . .
CitedStockholms Forsakrings- Och Skadestandsjuridik Ab v Sweden ECHR 16-Sep-2003
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion) ; Violation of P1-1 ; No violation of Art. 6-1 ; Violation of Art. 13 ; Pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and . .
CitedKeegan v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-2006
The claimant had been the subject of a raid by armed police on his home. The raid was a mistake. He complained that the English legal system, in rejecting his claim had not allowed him to assert that the police action had been disproportionate.
Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.165005