SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
22
censorship was erroneous, as the letter could not be said to contain a
complaint.
The same prohibition also led to the stopping of Mr. Carne’s letter no.
56, to a solicitor.
Mr. Noe’s letters nos. 9 and 11 were stopped under this rule for the
additional reason that the addressee was a barrister as well as a Member of
Parliament.
9. Prohibition on the inclusion in general correspondence of
complaints about prison treatment (see paragraph 45 (a), item (ix),
above)
68.
The following letters were stopped because they included
complaints about prison treatment:
(a) Mr. Silver’s letters nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, no. 4 being addressed to the
Chief Rabbi and the remainder to the applicant’s wife. It appears that, one
week after the stopping of letter no. 4, which concerned dietary grievances,
Mr. Silver was allowed to send a similar letter to the Rabbi;
(b) Mr. Tuttle’s letter no. 18, to his wife;
(c) Mr. Carne’s letters nos. 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 60 and 61,
addressed respectively to a Mr. McAndrew (nos. 44 and 50), the National
Council for Civil Liberties (nos. 46 and 55), the Howard League for Penal
Reform (no. 47), a medical practitioner (no. 48), the Health Service
Commissioner (no. 51), the Secretary of the National Association for
Mental Health (no. 52) and journalists (nos. 60 and 61). Letters nos. 46, 55
and 47 all pre-dated Instruction 38/1977 (see paragraph 35 above).
10. Prohibition on allegations against prison officers (see paragraph
45 (a), item (x), above)
69. This prohibition was a subsidiary ground for stopping Mr. Silver’s
letter no. 6 (see paragraph 68 above).
11. Prohibition on attempts to stimulate public agitation or petition (see
paragraph 45 (a), item (xi), above)
70. A subsidiary ground for stopping Mr. McMahon’s letters nos. 32
and 34 (see paragraph 66 above) was that they attempted to stimulate public
petition.
12. Miscellaneous
71. The posting of Mr. Noe’s letter no. 12, addressed to the United
States Consul and containing complaints about the control of
correspondence, was delayed for three weeks as it was referred to the Home
Office for instructions. The letter was written before the abolition of