35
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUGDMENT
102. Mr. Silver’s letter no.7 was stopped because it alluded to the
presence in his prison of certain other criminals (see paragraphs 45 (a), item
(ii), and 63 above). The Commission considered that the interference could
be regarded as "necessary", notably since Mr. Silver could have rewritten
the letter without the offending passage. His counsel claimed that the
Government had not established that the opportunity to rewrite had been
provided and that their statement that the letter would not be stopped under
the regime in force since December 1981 demonstrated that the measure
taken in 1973 was not "necessary".
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Court must assume that
Mr. Silver was given the aforesaid opportunity, in accordance with the usual
procedure (see paragraph 50 above). Bearing in mind that the other
criminals referred to were "category A" prisoners (see paragraph 16 above),
the Court finds that the authorities were entitled to think that the stopping of
this particular letter was necessary "in the interests of public safety" and
"for the prevention of disorder or crime", within the meaning of Article 8 §
2 (art. 8-)2).
103. Mr. Cooper’s letters nos. 28-31 were stopped not only for
employing grossly improper language but also for containing threats of
violence (see paragraphs 45 (a),item (iv), and 65 above). His counsel
contested the Commission’s view that the interference was "necessary" on
the second ground.
The Court agrees with the Commission. Letters nos. 28-30 contained
clear threats and letter no. 31 can be regarded as a continuation thereof. In
the Court’s judgment, the authorities had sufficient reason for concluding
that the stopping of these letters was necessary "for the prevention of
disorder or crime", within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 (art. 8-2).
104. Finally, Mr. Noe’s letter no. 12, to the United States Consul, was
delayed for three weeks before being posted (see paragraph 71 above). His
counsel questioned the necessity for this interference, whereas the
Commission, in arriving at its conclusion that there had here been no
violation of Article 8 (art. 8), found that there was no evidence that the
interference was not justified as being "necessary" for one or more of the
aims set out in paragraph 2 (art. 8-2) thereof.
The Court is of the view that when in any particular instance subordinate
prison authorities are in doubt as to how they should exercise their
supervisory functions regarding prisoners’ correspondence, they must be
able to seek instructions from higher authority. In the case of Mr. Noe’s
letter no. 12, the prison authorities found it necessary in the light of the law
and practice applicable at the time to refer the letter to the Home Secretary
for instructions; he decided that it should not be stopped. In these
circumstances and bearing in mind that the subject-matter of the letter was
not really urgent, the Court does not consider that the resultant delay of