19
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
or delayed are indicated below. In those cases where a letter was stopped for
more than one reason, the subsidiary ground or grounds are also stated.
The texts of 59 of these letters are set out in Appendix III to the
Commission’s report, copies of the remaining 5 not being available. The
available letters are those hereinafter referred to by number, the others those
referred to solely by date.
A. Provisions concerning the identity of correspondents
Restriction on correspondence other than with a relative or friend (see
paragraphs 29-30 above)
59. The following letters were stopped on the ground that they were not
sent by or addressed to a relative or existing friend:
(a) Mrs. Colne’s letters nos. 13, 14 and 15 to Mr. Williams (see also
paragraph 16 above);
(b) Mr. McMahon’s letters nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 (addressed
respectively to a broadcasting association, a barrister, the presenter of a
television programme, a journalist, the police officer who had been in
charge of the investigation of Mr. McMahon’s case, a professor of law and
the Mayor of Islington) and a letter of 31 December 1975 from the same
journalist to Mr. McMahon. The applicant had previously exchanged three
letters with the barrister in question, who was not known to him, but their
correspondence was prohibited when it appeared that it would go further
than a general enquiry. Although letter no. 41 was stopped, Mr. McMahon
was apparently allowed to write to a local borough councillor.
This restriction was also a subsidiary ground for stopping Mr. Silver’s
letter no. 4 and Mr. Carne’s letter no. 48 (see paragraph 68 below).
B. Provisions concerning the contents of correspondence
1. Restriction on communications in connection with any legal or other
business (see paragraphs 32, 35, 41 and 46 above)
60. (a) Mr. Carne’s letter no. 57 to a solicitor and his letter of 15
September 1975 to the National Council for Civil Liberties were stopped as
he had not previously applied to the prison governor for facilities to seek
legal advice. Both of these letters were written after the entry into force of
Instruction 45/1975 (see paragraph 32 above).
(b) Mr. Cooper’s letter no. 27 to a solicitor concerning a pending
prosecution, which letter also post-dated Instruction 45/1975, was stopped
as it was considered that he had already had sufficient facilities to seek legal
advice.