The prisoner complained that his protected correspondence had been wrongfully opened by prison staff. Despite a finding in his favour by the Prisons Ombudsman, the service had repeatedly failed either to change its behaviour or to apologise.
Held: The complaint was established: ‘The repetitive nature of the alleged breaches suggests serious shortcomings in the mail handling systems at HMP Swaleside. There are admissions in the Defendants’ own evidence of staff shortages but they do not, of course, explain the continuing failure over many months and it is plain that training has been wholly inadequate and the evidence clearly establishes a lack of knowledge of the regime. The Prison’s records demonstrate persistent non application of the Rule 39/Confidential Access regime and the records in the form of the opened in error log are such that the Defendants are simply not able to rely on the absence of an entry as being of any evidential value. ‘
Judges:
McKenna J
Citations:
[2017] EWHC 704 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
The Prison Rules 1999 39, European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – McCombe v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Nov-1985
The Commission declared admissible the complaints of a prisoner regarding the censorship of his correspondence with his solicitors. (Settlement: the United Kingdom government agreed to issue instructions that such correspondence would not be opened, . .
Cited – Ryder v United Kingdom ECHR 19-Jan-1989
The Commission considered whether a prisoner whose rule 39 mail had been opened on 3 occasions in a 15 day period with a further letter having gone missing altogether claimed to be a victim of a violation of article 8.
Held: Inadmissible. The . .
Cited – Demirtepe v France ECHR 21-Dec-1999
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Cited – Touroude v France ECHR 3-Oct-2000
A single letter to a prisoner had been wrongfully opened by mistake.
Held: A distinction was drawn from a case where, by reason of their repetition, incidents had revealed a malfunctioning of the mail service within the prison interfering with . .
Cited – Armstrong v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Jul-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8; Violation of Art. 13; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient
Four Rule 39 letters had been opened over a 5 month period.
Cited – William Faulkner v The United Kingdom ECHR 10-Mar-2011
A single letter had not been sent on from a prisoner to the Scottish Minister of State. A violation of article 8 was found. The interference was not ‘in accordance with the law’ nor ‘necessary in a democratic society’ for any reason permitted by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 24 March 2022; Ref: scu.582144