SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
30
(d) prohibition on material intended for publication (see paragraphs 45
(a), item (v), and 66 above): Mr. Silver’s letter no. 5, Mr. McMahon’s
letters nos. 32, 34, 37 and 42 and Mr. Carne’s letters nos. 60 and 61;
(e) prohibition on the inclusion in letters to legal advisers and Members
of Parliament of unventilated complaints about prison treatment (see
paragraphs 45 (a) and (b), 47 and 67 above): Mr. Noe’s letters nos. 9 and
11, Mr. Cooper’s letters nos. 20, 22, 23, 24 and 26 and his further letter of 3
April 1974, and Mr. Carne’s letters nos. 43, 45, 53, 54 and 56 and his
further letters of 27 December 1974 and 11 January 1975;
(f) prohibition on the inclusion in general correspondence of complaints
about prison treatment (see paragraphs 45 (a), item (ix), and 68 above): Mr.
Silver’s letters nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, Mr. Tuttle’s letter no. 18 and Mr.
Carne’s letters nos. 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 55, 60 and 61;
(g) prohibition on allegations against prison officers (see paragraphs 45
(a), item (x), and 69 above): Mr. Silver’s letter no. 6;
(h) the petition aspect of the prohibition on attempts to stimulate public
agitation or petition (see paragraphs 45 (a), item (xi), and 70 above): Mr.
McMahon’s letters nos. 32 and 34;
(i) the general control of "objectionable" letters (no official explanation
having been given - see paragraph 71 above): Mr. Cooper’s letters nos. 19,
21 and 25.
As regards items (a) and (i), the Commission considered that the actual
measure of interference complained of was not foreseeable; in the remaining
cases, it considered that the rule under which the stopping was effected
could not itself be foreseen.
The Government did not contest these findings on the part of the
Commission, and the Court sees no reason to disagree. It therefore holds
that the stopping of these letters on the grounds indicated above was not "in
accordance with the law".
(b) Contested items
92. The Government or the applicants contested the Commission’s
findings on the "in accordance with the law" issue as regards three separate
groups of letters. In accordance with the President’s Order of 22 July 1982
(see paragraph 6 above), argument was presented to the Court at the
hearings on these items, which will be considered in turn.
93. The first group comprises Mrs. Colne’s letters nos. 13-15, Mr.
McMahon’s letters nos. 35-41 and a letter of 31 December 1975 to him
from a journalist, all of which were stopped on the ground that they were
not sent by or addressed to a relative or existing friend (see paragraphs 2930 and 59 above). The Government contested the Commission’s view that
the relevant practice, by excluding correspondence with persons of good
character, went further than could reasonably be deduced from Rule 34(8) in