The prisoner was receiving long term health treatment, and objected that his correspondence with the doctor was being read. He was held as a category B prisoner but in a prison also holding category A prisoners, whose mail would be read. The prison settled upon a routine of the prison doctor reading the mail.
Held: The case was truly exceptional, and the prison should revert to its initial policy which did not require a pre-reading of the correspondence.
Judges:
Collins J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 514 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Silver And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Mar-1983
There had been interference with prisoners’ letters by prison authorities. The Commission considered Standing Orders and Circular Instructions in relation to restrictions on correspondence. The rules were not available to prisoners and were . .
Cited – Z v Finland ECHR 25-Feb-1997
A defendant had appealed against his conviction for manslaughter and related offences by deliberately subjecting women to the risk of being infected by him with HIV virus. The applicant, Z, had been married to the defendant, and infected by him with . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Regina on the Application of Szuluk v The Governor of HMP Full Sutton and the Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 29-Oct-2004
Right of prison to read correspondence with doctor . .
At administrative court – Edward Szuluk v United Kingdom ECHR 3-Jun-2009
The prisoner complained that the prison had monitored his conversations and communications with his doctor.
Held: The actions were a violation of the prisoner’s article 8 rights. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Prisons, Human Rights
Updated: 01 October 2022; Ref: scu.194914
