Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 20946/92

by Sjirk VEENSTRA

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 31 August 1994, the following members being present:

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 12 May 1992 by

Sjirk VEENSTRA against the United Kingdom and registered on

13 November 1992 under file No. 20946/92;

Having regard to:

- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the

Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

4 November 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 9 February 1994;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1936. At the date of

introduction of the application he was serving a sentence of 10 years'

imprisonment in HM Prison Saughton, Edinburgh. He is represented

before the Commission by Mrs. D. Haigh of Messrs. Shepherd and

Wedderburn WS, solicitors practising in Edinburgh.

The particular circumstances of the case

Since his imprisonment, the applicant was advised by his

solicitor in respect of:

1. An appeal against sentence in respect of his original

conviction.

2. An application to the European Commission of Human Rights

arising out of his failure to be advised in a language which he

understood of the details of the charges against him.

3. Claim against the Secretary of State in respect of injuries

sustained as a result of an accident which took place while he

was working in the prison greenhouse.

4. Difficulties regarding the opening of correspondence by the

prison authorities, of correspondence between the applicant and

his solicitors.

He states that throughout his detention from 1988 onwards, his

correspondence with his solicitors was regularly interfered with, in

that it was opened and perused by the prison authorities.

The applicant has submitted nine envelopes received from his

solicitors whilst he was in prison. They are postmarked as follows:

1. 12 March 1990

2. 11 September 1991

3. 18 September 1991

4. Not franked

5. 20 April 1992

6. 23 September 1992

7. 2 October 1992

8. 6 October 1992

9. 12 October 1992

All but the first of these letters is marked "Legal

correspondence". The applicant states that all these letters were

opened by the prison authorities, and that letters Nos. 2, 3, and 5,

and three further letters of 5 December 1991, 26 May 1992 and 17 June

1992 were opened without him being present. The parties agree that the

applicant made complaints to the prison authorities about his

correspondence on or around 28 April 1992, 18 May 1992, 20 August 1992

and 23 September 1992.

Relevant Domestic Law and Practice

Section 39(1) of the Prison (Scotland) Act 1989 states:

"The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and

management of prisons ... and for the classification, treatment,

employment, discipline and control of persons required to be

detained therein."

Rule 74(4) of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 reads as follows:

"Subject to the provisions of Rule 50(4) every letter to or from

a prisoner shall be read by the Governor or by an officer deputed

by him for that purpose and it shall be within the discretion of

the Governor to stop any letter if he considers that the contents

are objectionable."

On 12 October 1992 changes to the regulations concerning legal

correspondence entered into force. Standing Orders Amendment Circular

6/92 states that prisoners` legal correspondence may only be opened

if there is a reason to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure

not detected by the normal means, but even such a letter should only

be opened but not read and it must be opened in the prisoner`s

presence. Legal correspondence may be read in exceptional circumstance

if the authorities have reasonable cause to believe that the privilege

is being abused. On 1 October 1993 an amended Rule 74 (4) of the

Prison Rules came into force. It provides that correspondence with a

legal adviser may only be opened if the Governor or an officer has

cause to believe that it contains a prohibited article, and the

prisoner is present. A letter may only be read in exceptional

circumstances where the Governor has reasonable cause to believe that

the contents of the letter endanger the security of the prison or the

safety of any person, or relate to a criminal activity.

On 19 May 1993 the Court of Appeal in England allowed an appeal

from a prisoner who challenged the English equivalent of Rule 74 (4)

(R. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Leech). It

held that Rule 33(3) of the (English) Prison Rules 1964 was ultra vires

the rule-making power in Section 47 (1) of the Prison Act 1952 insofar

as it purported to apply to correspondence between prisoners and their

legal advisers.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains about the interference with his

correspondence with his solicitor and invokes Article 8 of the

Convention.

The applicant also complains of the opening of his correspondence

in the context of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that the

correspondence concerns inter alia possible proceedings against the

prison authorities. He submits that this is prejudicial and discloses

an inequality of arms as he has no access to the prison authorities'

legal correspondence with their legal adviser.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 12 May 1992 and registered on

13 November 1992.

On 30 June 1993 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and to request them to submit

written observations on admissibility and merits.

On 7 September 1993 the Commission decided to grant the applicant

legal aid.

The Government submitted their observations on 4 November 1993,

and the applicant submitted his observations in reply on 9 February

1994.THE LAW

The applicant alleges violation of Articles 6 and 8

(Art. 6, 8) of the Convention by virtue of the interferences with his

legal correspondence. The Government accept that some correspondence

was opened which should not have been, but point out that the prison

authorities apologised at the time to the applicant for the opening of

those letters. They state that the prison authorities have no record

or knowledge of any other correspondence, so they are unable to comment

on it.

The applicant considers that the Commission should declare the

application admissible. He considers that the changes in the rules

have been brought about only very slowly and grudgingly, and have still

not been properly publicised.

The Commission is not required to decide whether the facts

relating to these complaints disclose any appearance of a violation of

the Convention as, under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may

only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted

according to the generally recognised rules of international law.

The Commission notes that in the English case of R. v. the

Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Leech (Court of

Appeal judgment of 19 May 1993) the English equivalent of the rules

governing interference with prisoners' legal correspondence up to 12

October 1992 was quashed by the Court of Appeal. In a decision of even

date herewith, the Commission agreed with the Government's contention

that the applicant in that case ought to have appealed against a

decision of the Court of Session to the House of Lords, given that the

English rules were under challenge (No. 20075/92). The applicant's

representative in the present case also represented the applicant in

Application No. 20075/92.

The Commission further notes that, although the applicant

complained to the prison authorities about interferences with his

correspondence, he did not apply for any court review of the rules as

such, nor did he challenge a specific incident of the opening or

reading of correspondence by the prison authorities before the Scottish

courts. Given the English Court of Appeal's decision in the case of

Leech, and the Commission's decision in Application No. 20075/92, the

Commission considers that the applicant's failure to attempt any form

of judicial review of the position in Scotland up to 12 October 1992

indicates that he has not exhausted the remedies available to him under

Scottish law. Moreover, an examination of the case does not disclose

the existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved

him , according to the generally recognised rules of international law,

from exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.

It follows that the applicant has not complied with the condition

as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the application must

therefore be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the

Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)

Menu

VEENSTRA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

VEENSTRA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI