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 complainer was not a victim because he had failed to demonstrate any deliberate flouting of his rights. The Commission stated: ‘The Commission’s previous law indicates that the opening of a prisoner’s correspondence with his solicitor may raise issues under article 8 of the convention. In the case of McCombe v. The United Kingdom (no. 10621/83, December 11.3.85, to be published in DR) the Commission declared admissible the complaints of a prisoner regarding the censorship of his correspondence with his solicitors. The Commission also recalls that pursuant to a friendly settlement in that case, the United Kingdom government agreed to issue instructions that such correspondence would not be opened, save in the presence of the prisoner concerned.
The Commission notes that these instructions appear to have been implemented in the prisons in which the applicant was detained but that various incidents occurred in which letters from his solicitors were nonetheless opened. The Commission further notes that the applicant was able to complain to the governor and the secretary of state concerning these incidents and received various apologies and explanations, which the commission finds to be reasonable in the circumstances of this case. In the absence of any evidence of a deliberate flouting or disregard of the secretary of state’s instructions, the Commission finds that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of article 8 of the Convention.’
Citations:
14176/88
Statutes:
European Convention on Human R
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
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 by:
Cited – Bruton v The Governor of HMP Swaleside and Another Admn 19-Apr-2017
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.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.582167