The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the
Convention"),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights in the Campbell case delivered on 25 March 1992 and
transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application against
the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human
Rights on 14 January 1986 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the
Convention by Mr Thomas Campbell, a British national, who
complained of interference by the prison authorities with his
correspondence to and from his solicitor and the European
Commission of Human Rights;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 12 October 1990 and by the Government of the United
Kingdom on 22 November 1990;
Whereas in its judgment of 25 March 1992 the Court:
- held by eight votes to one that the interference with the
applicant's correspondence with his solicitor gave rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
- held by eight votes to one that the interference with the
applicant's correspondence with the Commission gave rise to a
violation of Article 8 (art. 8);
- held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine
whether or not there had been a breach of Article 25,
paragraph 1 (art. 25-1);
- held unanimously that the United Kingdom was to pay to the
applicant within three months, in respect of costs and expenses,
the sums resulting from the calculations to be made in accordance
with paragraph 73 of the judgment;
- dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for just
satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of
the Convention;
Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to
inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of
the judgment of 25 March 1992, having regard to its obligation
under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee
of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom gave the
Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of
the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this
resolution;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of the United
Kingdom has paid the applicant the sum provided for in the
judgment,
Declares, after having taken note of the information
supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has
exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the
Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (93)5
Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom
during the examination of the Campbell case
by the Committee of Ministers
An administrative circular No. SOA 6/92, with a view to
amending the standing orders applying to the correspondence of
all categories of prisoners, was sent on 5 October 1992 to all
prison governors in Scotland. Standing order amendments followed
on 18 November 1992. The circular, which came into force on
12 October 1992, describes in detail the procedure to be followed
regarding control over correspondence with legal advisers as well
as correspondence with the European Commission and Court of Human
Rights.
Following the Court's judgment in the present case, any
correspondence between a prisoner and a legal adviser, incoming
as well as outgoing, shall henceforth be handed over to him or
mailed without having been opened or read. Only in exceptional
cases, when there is reasonable cause to believe that the said
correspondence contains an illicit enclosure which the normal
means of detection have failed to disclose, or that the privilege
is being abused, may a letter addressed to or coming from a legal
adviser be opened in the prisoner's presence, but not read.
The prison governor may himself decide that a particular
prisoner's correspondence with his legal adviser should be read.
That must, however, take place only in exceptional cases,
specifically listed, and must not be maintained for any longer
than is defensible.
As regards correspondence between a prisoner and the
Commission and Court of Human Rights, it will neither be opened
nor read as long as the prison authorities are able to make sure,
by seeing or feeling the envelopes, that the said correspondence
does originate in Strasbourg or that the address stated by the
prisoner does correspond to the Convention organs' address.
The sum awarded by way of just satisfaction for costs and
expenses, £ 9 997,84, was paid on 28 April 1992.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy