The Gazette 1975

f v fj

BLAMES HOME SECRET ABY

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.

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.

87