Leigh Day & Co has successfully settled a judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State for Justice on behalf of a “Mr A”, a serving prisoner, with regard to the procedure for sending out his legal mail whilst an inmate at HMP Ranby.
On 22nd December 2009, Mr A commenced a judicial review challenge against the Secretary of State for Justice. The grounds of the challenge were that the policy and/or practice in place at HMP Ranby, whereby all prisoners were required to submit their legal mail in an unsealed envelope to a prison officer for inspection was unlawful and in breach of his human rights.
The facts of the case were that, between April 2009 and December 2009, Mr A had sent approximately 75 letters to his various legal advisors.
On each occasion, Mr A had been required to place his letters in an unsealed envelope and take it to a prison officer on his wing for inspection. The prison officer would then usually take the letter out of the envelope, unfold it and then refold it, before placing it back into the envelope to be sealed, signed and then sent to his legal advisors.
Mr A considered that this procedure effectively prevented him from communicating with his legal advisors in private and in confidence. He therefore made a complaint to the prison with regard to the procedure. However, in response to his complaint, he was informed that the inspection of all legal mail by prison officers was necessary to ensure that it did not contain any illicit enclosures. He was simply informed that “we have the authority to do this”.
Despite this assertion, however, the law is quite clear that a prison does not have the authority to put such a procedure in place.
In fact, Rule 39 of the Prison Rules 1999 provides that a prisoner’s legal mail “may only be opened if the governor has reasonable cause to believe that it contains an illicit enclosure”. Furthermore, the HM Prison Service’s own guidance, set out in Prison Service Order 4411, explicitly provides that “prisoners should be informed that their legal mail may be handed in sealed for despatch”.
On 22nd March 2010, the Honourable Mr Justice Wilkie, granted permission for Mr A’s judicial review challenge to go to a full hearing on an expedited basis. Soon after the grant of permission, however, the Secretary of State for Justice made an offer to settle Mr A’s judicial review challenge on the basis that they make an admission that the procedure was unlawful and breached his human rights and they pay £500.00 in compensation as recognition for this breach (as well as his legal costs in bringing the judicial review challenge).
This offer has been accepted by Mr A and the judicial review challenge has now been withdrawn.
Benjamin Burrows, a solicitor in the Human Rights Department of the firm, stated that “it is a long-established and deeply enshrined principle of our legal system that everyone, including prisoners, have the right to communicate with their legal advisors in private and in confidence. Any and all attempts to erode or to bypass this principle, such as in Mr A’s case, should be fiercely resisted”.
Leigh Day & Co instructed Hugh Southey QC, a leading human rights barrister at Tooks Chambers, in this matter. Mr A would like to thank the Legal Services Commission, without whose help it would not have been able to bring this important challenge to a successful conclusion.
All enquiries should be directed to Benjamin Burrows or Sean Humber at Leigh Day.
Information was correct at time of publishing. See terms and conditions for further details.