90 / 336
f v fj
BLAMES HOME SECRET ABY
Home Office refusal iu allow a Parkhurst prisoner
to consult a solicitor over a libel action he wanted
to bring against a prison officer was a breach of the
European
Convention
on Human
Rights,
the
European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg ruled.
In the first case to be brought against the British
Government in the Court sincc its creation in 1959,
the Court held that the refusal in 1970 by a former
1/ibour Home Secretary, Mr. Callaghan, was an
infringement of two articles of the Convention.
By a majority of nine to three, the judges decided
that the British Government had broken Article Six
of the Convention which protects a person's right to
a "fair and public hearing" of his civil claims and
which, the Court held, included a right cf free access
to the Courts.
The 12 judges ruled unanimously that, by refusing
to allow the prisoner to write to his solicitor, there
had been a breach of Article Eight, which protects a
person's right to "respect for his correspondence."
Prison riot
The claim had been brought against the British
Government by Mr. Sidney Colder, 51, who was
released on parole in 1972 after serving seven years
of a 12-year sentence for armed robbery.
He alleged that he had been wrongly accused by
a prison officer of assaulting him during the prison
riot in Parkhurst Jail in October, 1969.
When he sought leave from the EÍomc Secretary
under the Prison Rules to consult a lawyer about
bringing a defamation suit against the officer, he was
refused permission and it was made clear to him
that if he tried to write to his lawyer his letters would
be stopped by the Prison Authorities.
While the Court was careful not to declare that
the current Prison Rules requiring prisoners to obtain
the Home Secretary's approval before contacting the
lawyer were in breach of the European Human Rights
Convention, the judgment will obviously embarrass
the British Government.
The Government is faced with having either to
modify the rules to give prisoners the right to contact
or to write to lawyers in similar cases or to ensure
that the Home Secretary's approval in future is not
refused.
'
Otherwise it faces a series of time-consuming and
costly cases brought against it before the European
Commission of Human Rights and the Court by-
prisoners.
Mr. Golder and his lawyer were not in Court in
Strasbourg when the judgement was read at a 45-
minute hearing by Italian president of the court,
Signor Balladore Pallieri.
He said that a right of access to the Courts was not
absolute, but it was not the function of tfic Court in
this case to elaborate a general theory of the limita-
tions admissable in the case of convicted prisoners or
to rule on the compatability of the British Prison
Rules with the Convention.
The Court had only to decide whether in the
present case application of those Rules violated the
Convention ;o the prejudice of Mr. Golder.
Kepi in solitary confinement
Mr. Colder had been seeking to exculpate himself
of the charge made against him by the prison officer
which had led to "unpleasant consequences" for him,
which included being kept for a period of solitary
confinement.
"It was not for the Home Secretary himself to
appraise the prospect of the action contemplated by-
Mr. Colder. It was for an independent and impartial
Court to rule on any claims that might be brought."
In refusing permission for Mr. Golder to consult
a lawyer, the Home Secretary had failed to respect
the right of a person to go before a court that was
guaranteed in Article Six.
The fair public and expeditious character of judicial
proceedings were of no value at all if there were no
judicial proceedings.
Impeding someone from initiating correspondence
constituted "the most far reaching form of inter-
ference with the exercise of the right to respect for
correspondence" and the Court unanimously reached
the conclusion that there had been a violation of this
article of the Convention, he added.
Mr. Goldcr, who had been granted legal aid by the
European Commission to pursue his claim before
the Commission and the Court, had not asked for
damages from the British Government and the Court
ruled that its finding that there had been a violation
of the Convention was an "adequate, just satisfaction"
for him.
Political pressure
The British Government has no right of appeal
against the judgment and it will be for the Council
of Ministers to decide whether any political pressure
should be put on the British Government to amend
the Prison Rules to avoid further breaches of the
convention.
Officials at the Commission and the Court could
give no estimate of how much the claim by Mr.
Golder, first submitted to the commission in 1969,
had cost.
87