CAMPBELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:1990:0712REP001359088
• Respondent State: United Kingdom
• Date: 08 November 1989
• Application Number: 13590/88
• Court: Commission (European Commission of Human Rights)
• Counsel: CARROLL ; John ; Solicitor ; Glasgow
• Applied Rules: 8;8-1;8-2;25;25-1;34



Application No. 13590/88

Thomas CAMPBELL

against

the UNITED KINGDOM

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 12 July 1990)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-16) 1

A. The application (paras. 2-4) 1

B. The proceedings (paras. 5-12) 1

C. The present Report (paras. 13-16) 2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 17-38) 4

A. Particular circumstances of the case 4

(paras. 17-28)

B. Relevant domestic law (paras. 29-38) 6

a. In general (paras. 29-30) 6

b. Correspondence with legal advisers

(paras. 31-35) 6

c. Correspondence concerning proceedings

under the European Convention on Human Rights

(paras. 36-38) 8

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 39-77) 9

A. Points at issue (para. 39) 9

B. Opening of correspondence with the applicant's

solicitor (paras. 40-62) 9

a. Opening of correspondence with the solicitor

concerning contemplated and pending

proceedings (paras. 49-56) 11

b. Opening of general correspondence with

the solicitor (paras. 57-62) 12

C. Opening of correspondence with the Commission

(paras. 63-74) 13

a. Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 64-72) 13

b. Article 25 of the Convention (paras. 73-76) 15

D. Recapitulation (para. 77) 16

Partially dissenting opinion of Mr. H.G. Schermers 17

Partially dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall

joined by Mrs. J. Liddy 19

APPENDIX I History of the proceedings 20

APPENDIX II Decision on the admissibility 22

of the application

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2. The applicant is Thomas Campbell, a British citizen born in

1952. He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in

Barlinnie prison, Glasgow. The applicant is represented before the

Commission by Mr. John Carroll, a solicitor practising in Glasgow.

3. The application is directed against the United Kingdom. The

Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Michael Wood of the

Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

4. The case relates to the applicant's complaints that his

correspondence with his solicitor and the European Commission of Human

Rights has been opened by the prison authorities. The application

raises issues under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.

B. The proceedings

5. The application was introduced on 14 January 1986 and

registered on 5 February 1988.

6. On 13 July 1988 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 42

para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, that notice of the application

should be given to the respondent Government and that they should be

invited to present, before 10 November 1988, their written observations

on the admissibility and merits of the application.

7. The Government sent their written observations on 1 December

1988, after an extension of the time-limit for their submission had

been granted by the President of the Commission. The applicant's

representative submitted the applicant's written observations in reply

on 7 March 1989.

8. Further information was submitted by the applicant on 12 May

1989 and by the Government on 23 May 1989.

9. On 17 March 1989, the Commission decided to grant legal aid to

the applicant.

10. On 7 September 1989 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 42

para. 3 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to invite the parties to make

further oral submissions at a hearing on the admissibility and merits

of the applicant's complaints concerning the opening of his

correspondence.

At the hearing, which was held on 8 November 1989, the

applicant was represented by Mr. John Carroll. The Government were

represented by their Agent, Mr. Michael Wood, Mr. MacKay, QC,

Mrs. MacDonald (Scottish Office) and Mr. Reeves (Scottish Home and

Health Department), Advisers.

11. On 8 November 1989 the Commission declared the application

inadmissible as regards the applicant's complaints concerning refusal

of legal aid and his complaint concerning the opening of a letter to a

Member of Parliament and admissible the applicant's complaints

concerning interference with his correspondence. The Commission also

decided to examine further whether the opening of the applicant's

correspondence from the Commission was compatible with Article 25

para. 1 of the Convention. The parties were then invited to submit any

additional observations on the merits of the application. The

applicant submitted further observations on 5 February 1990 and the

Government on 23 February 1990. The Commission considered the state

of proceedings on 12 May 1990.

12. After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed

itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a

friendly settlement of the case. In the light of the parties'

reactions, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a

friendly settlement can be effected.

C. The present Report

13. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes in plenary session, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

M. C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

14. The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on

12 July 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers

in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.

15. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of

the Convention, is

1) to establish the facts, and

2) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found disclose

a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the

Convention.

16. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before

the Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's

decision on the admissibility of the application as APPENDIX II.

The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. Particular circumstances of the case

17. The applicant is serving a term of life imprisonment for

murder following his conviction on 10 October 1984.

18. Since his imprisonment the applicant has been advised by his

solicitor in respect of:

1. an action for damages for injuries sustained on 3 November 1985;

2. a claim against the Secretary of State for damages in respect

of injuries sustained on 25 April 1987;

3. a claim against the Secretary of State in respect of

infestation of lice while in the hospital wing of Peterhead

Prison in November 1985;

4. a possible prosecution by the police (arising out of an

incident in Barlinnie Prison on 25 April 1987);

5. a denial of communication with the solicitor following the

said incident on 25 April 1987;

6. the Prison Department's denial of the applicant's right to

free and unrestricted correspondence between himself and his

legal advisers on all of the above matters;

7. an application (Application No. 12323/86) to the European

Commission of Human Rights concerning inter alia his solitary

confinement and access to his solicitor while in custody in

hospital;

8. the present application.

19. The applicant states that throughout his detention, from 1985

onwards, his correspondence with his solicitor and the Commission has

regularly been interfered with, in being opened and screened by the

prison authorities.

20. On 16 September 1985, the applicant's solicitor wrote to the

Governor, HM Prison Peterhead, asking that all correspondence between

him and his client should pass without interference. After the

Deputy Governor of Peterhead had discussed the matter with the

applicant, he wrote on 23 September 1985 to the applicant's solicitor

indicating that outgoing mail from the applicant to his solicitor

concerning his petition to the Commission, if properly marked, would

not be opened.

21. In a further letter dated 4 October 1985 the solicitors wrote

to the Governor of Peterhead Prison again asking for Standing Order M

to be waived regarding all solicitors' correspondence. On 15 October

1985 the Governor replied that incoming mail from the solicitor

concerning an application to the Commission, suitably identified,

would be opened in the presence of the prisoner and handed to him

unread. The Governor explained that this arrangement would not apply

to solicitors' correspondence about matters other than the application

to the Commission.

22. On 24 October 1985 the applicant's solicitor wrote to the

Scottish Home and Health Department again requesting that all the

correspondence between him and his client should pass unopened.

23. On 29 October 1985 the applicant petitioned the Secretary of

State complaining about censorship of his mail with his solicitor. In

their reply to this and other petitions on 19 June 1986 the Scottish

Home and Health Department advised the applicant that his solicitor

had been told on 15 October 1985 that correspondence "in respect of

ECHR procedures" should be clearly marked to ensure privacy but that

any other correspondence between an inmate and his legal adviser was

subject to the normal rules.

24. On 16 June 1986 the Scottish Home and Health Department wrote

to the applicant's solicitor confirming the arrangements for

solicitors' correspondence concerning matters before the Commission

but reaffirming that other correspondence was still subject to normal

rules.

25. In his petition dated 19 June 1986 the applicant again

complained that incoming mail from his solicitor was scrutinised. He

repeated these complaints in his petition dated 27 June 1986. In

these petitions, the applicant also drew the attention of the

authorities to the fact that correspondence from the European

Commission of Human Rights was being opened. The reply to these

petitions received by the applicant on 15 July 1986 referred the

applicant to the existing arrangements. In his petition of

30 December 1986 he...