31
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
conjunction with Rule 33(1) and that the stopping of these letters was
accordingly not "in accordance with the law".
In determining whether the foreseeability criterion was satisfied in this
instance, account cannot be taken of the Orders which supplemented Rule
34(8): they were not available to prisoners nor do their contents appear to
have been explained in cell cards (see paragraphs 26, 30 and 88 above).
However, the wording of Rule 34(8) (see paragraph 29 above) is itself quite
explicit: a reader would see not that correspondence with persons other than
friends or relatives is allowed subject to certain exceptions but rather that it
is prohibited save where the Secretary of State gives leave. Moreover, the
Court considers that account should also be taken of Rule 33(2) - which
contains a prohibition similar to that found in Rule 34(8) - and of Rule
34(2), from which it would be apparent that there were limits on the
quantity of the correspondence of convicted prisoners (see paragraphs 29
and 38 above).
For these reasons, the Court concludes that the interferences in question
were "in accordance with the law".
94. The second group comprises Mr. Carne’s letters nos. 58 and 59,
dated 12 December 1975 and 2 January 1976 and addressed to a Member of
Parliament, which were stopped on the ground that they contained
complaints about prison treatment, in respect of which the "prior ventilation
rule" had not been observed (see paragraphs 45 (b), 47 and 67 above).
Whilst not contesting the Commission’s view that the stopping of certain
other letters in the same category was not foreseeable since the "prior
ventilation rule" was not contained in the Rules themselves, the Government
submitted that the position was otherwise as regards these two items. They
relied on the explanatory notice which was issued for the information of
prisoners in November 1975, that is before the two letters were written (see
paragraph 45 (b) above).
The Court considers that the terms of the notice in question were such as
to make those concerned sufficiently aware of the practice in the matter (see
paragraph 88 above). The stopping of these letters was therefore a
foreseeable application of the Rules and, hence, "in accordance with the
law".
95. The third group comprises the following letters which were stopped
or delayed on the principal or subsidiary grounds indicated:
(a) restrictions on communications in connection with any legal or other
business (see paragraphs 32, 35, 41, 46 and 60 above): Mr. Noe’s letter no.
10, and Mr. Carne’s letters nos. 49 and 57 and his letter of 15 September
1975 to the National Council for Civil Liberties;
(b) prohibition on letters evading or circumventing the regulations (see
paragraphs 44 and 62 above): Mr. Silver’s letter no. 1 and Mr. Tuttle’s letter
no. 18;