CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 juillet 1988

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block }    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 12323/86 by Thomas CAMPBELL against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 July 1988, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 M.    C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 5 July 1985 by Thomas CAMPBELL against the United Kingdom and registered on 8 August 1986 under file No. 12323/86;           Having regard to:        -   the report provided for by Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure         of the Commission;        -   the Government's observations of 2 June 1987;        -   the applicant's observations of 6 August 1987;       - ii -            -   the second report provided for by Rule 40 of the Rules of         Procedure;        -   the submissions of the parties at the hearing on 13 July 1988;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen born in 1952 and resident in Glasgow.   He is currently serving a life sentence.   He is represented before the Commission by John Carroll, a solicitor.   The facts as agreed by the parties may be summarised as follows.           On 16 April 1984, a fire occurred in a house in Glasgow in which six persons died.   This was an incident in a spate of violence and vandalism occurring between rivals in the ice-cream trade.           The applicant, who had relations in the ice-cream trade and a record of violent offences was arrested and appeared in Court on 16 May 1984 charged with conspiracy.   On 22 May, the applicant was brought back to Court and served with a fresh petition charging murder in respect of the fire on 16 April 1984.   During the judicial examination of the applicant, the Procurator Fiscal Depute conducting the case, questioned him on the basis that the applicant was present at the house and was involved in starting the fire.   The applicant in reply specified in detail an alibi for that time.           The applicant was subsequently indicted to the High Court in Glasgow on charges of conspiracy to commit robbery, wilful fire-raising, murder, assault and instigation of others to commit assault and murder.   The applicant was found guilty of assault and murder on 10 October 1984 and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment and life imprisonment, with a recommendation that he serve not less than twenty years.           The applicant applied for legal aid to appeal his conviction: he had already been legally-aided during the trial.   It appears however that the applicant's counsel indicated that they would not be prepared to argue his appeal as he wished.   The applicant therefore prepared and lodged his own grounds of appeal and with the aid of a solicitor, prepared his submissions on appeal, copies of which were provided for the Appeal Court judges.   The applicant applied under Section 274 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1975 Act to have the shorthand notes of the trial but this request was refused both by the Clerk of the Justiciary and the Secretary of State.           The applicant presented his appeal on 16 and 17 June 1985 and was kept in manacles throughout the proceedings.   The applicant requested the Lord Justice Clerk to have the manacles removed so that he could reach and refer to his papers but this request was denied and the applicant was kept handcuffed to one prison officer while before the Court.   The prosecution was represented by a senior Advocate Depute, a Q.C., who was assisted by junior counsel and members of the Procurator Fiscal service.   On page 2 of the Court's Opinion the Lord Justice Clerk states:           "When he was called upon to make his submissions in support         of his grounds of appeal the appellant stated that they         were all included in the said summary and asked the Court's         leave simply to read that document to the Court.   Such         leave was granted and he read the document to the Court.         When he had done so he was asked if he wished to add         anything to what he had already submitted and he replied         in the negative.   The learned Advocate Depute replied,         and the appellant then sought leave to answer some of the         points made by the Advocate Depute.   Although this further         speech is contrary to normal procedure in criminal appeals         we granted the appellant the indulgence."           The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and refused his application to receive "new evidence".           On 18 November 1985, the applicant petitioned the Secretary of State under Section 263 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 to remit the matter back to the Appeal Court.   This petition was refused by letter dated 19 March 1986.           On 7 June 1985, the applicant had been transferred from Glasgow to Peterhead Prison over 200 miles away.   The applicant wished to pursue his petition and an application before the European Commission of Human Rights, and expressed the desire to be allowed to work full-time in his cell.   In particular, he asked if he could be allowed to remain in his cell or be transferred to the Special Unit of Barlinnie Prison.   An Assistant Governor of the prison indicated to the applicant that none of these options would be appropriate but explained that the applicant could be placed in a separate cell under Rule 36(1) of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952.           On 24 June 1985 the applicant petitioned the Secretary of State complaining about the Rule 36 conditions and requesting permission to be employed in his own cell "to study law and procedures" in pursuit of his case.   He commented that at Peterhead the only way he could pursue his various appeals was "on Rule 36 in the separate cell area, otherwise I have to be employed full-time on a sewing machine making £3.20 a week" and that he would have to be exposed to "the bombardment of the games room for the rest of the evening".   The applicant indicated that he had "opted for Rule 36" because this appeared to be the only way he could spend more time with his files and books.   The applicant asked for "exemption from employment in the prison industries" and repeated his request for a transfer to Barlinnie Special Unit "or to the nearest mental institution".   In their reply of 12 July the Department replied that the applicant was on Rule 36 conditions at his own insistence, that the Rule 36 conditions had been explained to him fully in an effort to encourage him to follow normal prison routine and that he could be removed from these conditons if he so wished.           On 2 November 1985, an incident occurred in the solitary confinement block and a number of prisoners were investigated as to their alleged involvement.   On 3 November, the applicant was visited in his cell by a number of prison officers.   An incident then occurred and the applicant was removed to hospital, where he underwent a life-saving operation and a rupture to the small bowel was repaired.           On 10 November 1985, the applicant's solicitor arrived at the hospital to discuss with the applicant the circumstances which led to his admission to hospital.   He had previously been told by the Prison Division that the applicant was in hospital for an appendix operation. The visit had been arranged by the solicitor with the sanction of the prison and hospital staff, and the police who were helping in supervision.   On arrival at the hospital however, the solicitor was told that he had to submit his person and luggage (consisting of the applicant's files and a camera) to a search and that police and prison officers would have to be present at the interview for reasons of security.   The solicitor phoned the Assistant Governor of the prison and explained that the meeting concerned possible Court proceedings but was told that the police were in charge.   The solicitor therefore submitted to the search during which he handed over a small pocket knife with a blade of 2 inches.   The interview was conducted in the presence of police and prison officers, one of whom had been present during the incident of which the applicant was complaining.   The solicitor took pictures of the applicant's injuries with his camera. The door of the room in which the applicant was kept remained open throughout.           Following the meeting, the applicant and his solicitor made a formal complaint of assault by the prison officers.   The applicant was later charged with crimes of rioting and assault in respect of the incidents on 2 and 3 November 1985.           By letter to the Chief Constable of Grampian Police dated 14 November 1985, the applicant's solicitor complained of the conditions imposed on his visit to the applicant and stated that:           "The meeting with <the applicant> became protracted by virtue         of the fact that it was not possible to conduct it in normal         conversational tones and we were compelled to discuss the         matter in hushed whispers for the sake of preserving some         degree of confidentiality."           On return from hospital to Peterhead Prison on 12 November 1985, the applicant was kept apart from the other prisoners under Rule 39 and then Rule 36 of the Prison Rules.   The applicant commenced a hunger-strike in January 1986 in protest over his confinement in Peterhead - he had made several unsuccessful requests to be transferred to Barlinnie in Glasgow to facilitate the communication with his legal advisers.           On 23 January 1986, he was transferred on health grounds to the hospital at Barlinnie.   On 14 February 1986, he was returned to Peterhead where he was again placed on Rule 36 conditions, awaiting the outcome of the criminal charges against him.           The prosecutor withdrew the charges connected with rioting in May 1986 and on 24 June 1986, the applicant was acquitted of the assault charge.           On 14 July 1986 the Governor of Peterhead Prison spoke to the applicant about the continued use of Rule 36 in his case.   The applicant had indicated that if he were removed from Rule 36 and returned to normal conditions he would not expect to be employed in prison work but to continue with his "appeal" full-time.   The Governor had told the applicant that such a situation would not be acceptable and the applicant had replied that he would prefer to remain on Rule 36 conditions.           By reply dated 29 July 1986 to one of the applicant's petitions the Scottish Home and Health Department stated inter alia "the prisoner can however be assured that it is understood that he objects to being held under Rule 36 Conditions.   Equally, the prisoner will understand that his continued detention under Rule 36 is a consequence of his own refusal to return to normal circulation and the general prison regime, to enable him to concentrate on possible remedies for his conviction and sentence.   It is of course open to the prisoner to seek return to normal circulation at any time."           In September 1986, the applicant began another hunger-strike and he was transferred to the hospital at Barlinnie Prison on 18 September.   After treatment at Barlinnie for the effects of refusing food the prisoner returned to Peterhead for the second time on 26 September.   After refusing to take food on his return to Peterhead the applicant was again transferred to the hospital at Barlinnie on 6 October.   On 8 October he was transferred to D Hall of Barlinnie Prison.   At Barlinnie the applicant agreed to work and therefore remained in D Hall although still subject to security precautions as a category A prisoner.   He now enjoyed limited association with other prisoners.           The applicant has been granted legal aid in order to pursue an action for damages for assault against the Secretary of State for Scotland and it appears that a summons has now been issued instituting proceedings in respect of the incident on 3 November 1985.           Domestic law and practice           Security categories           Under Rule 7 of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 convicted prisoners are classified in accordance with instructions given to the Secretary of State.   Standing Order Fb10 of the Prisons (Scotland) Standing Orders sets out the security categories and how prisoners shall be allocated to them.   All inmates in Scottish penal establishments are placed in one of four security categories A, B, C or D.   Prisoners placed in security category D are those who may reasonably be trusted to serve their sentences in open conditions. Prisoners in category A are those requiring the highest degree of security, who must in no circumstances be allowed to escape because of considerations of public safety or national security.   The number of category A prisoners held at any one time in penal establishments in Scotland is no more than 15 on average (out of a current population of about 5,500 prisoners).   Those in security classification B are those who ought to be kept in very secure conditions.           In addition the Governor of a prison must assess which prisoners need be subject to special precautions having regard inter alia to the potential risk of escape.   Prisoners placed on strict escape precautions (SEP) are subject to special conditions affecting inter alia their location and movement within an establishment. Each case is reviewed by the Governor not less than once every three months and no prisoner may be removed from the SEP list without the authority of the Scottish Home and Health Department.           Handcuffing of prisoners           Under Section 242 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (as amended by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980) the Secretary of State has the responsibility for arranging that appellants are transmitted to and from an appeal hearing.   Section 243 of that Act, as amended, states that the Secretary of State shall call sufficient numbers of male and female prison officers to attend the court as, having regard to the list of cases he considers necessary, Section 10 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 provides that Rules under Section 35 of that Act may provide for the manner in which an appellant when in custody is to be taken to, kept in custody at, and brought back from, the appeal hearing.           Rule 23 of the Rules further provides for such prisoners while outside the prison to be kept in the custody of the officers directed by the Governor to convey him to the appeal hearing and Standing Order Fb11 provides that where an inmate who is regarded as being particularly dangerous is to appear at the Appeal Court in Edinburgh it will be for Governors to make special security arrangements. Standing Order Fc10 makes specific provisions regarding the handcuffing of prisoners.   No prisoner produced for any reason to any court of law may be handcuffed while in court except with the permission of the judge.   Handcuffing in courts is an exceptional measure which should normally be considered only if there are reasonable grounds to expect that if unrestrained the inmate would commit an assault in the courtroom and or attempt to escape from it.           Visiting conditions           Section 10(2) of the 1952 Act provides that where a prisoner is taken to a hospital for medical or surgical treatment he shall, unless the Secretary of State otherwise directs, be kept in custody while being so taken, while at that place, and while being taken back to prison.   By virtue of Rule 1, the Rules extend where appropriate to prisoners in hospital as they do to prisoners in prison.   Rule 74(2) of the Rules covers visits to convicted prisoners and Standing Order Mb sets out detailed provision for visits.   Visits by legal advisers are provided for in Rules 76 and 77 and Standing Orders Mf7 and Mb20. Applications by prisoners to the Commission are covered by Standing Order Mf.   Rule 76 of the 1952 Rules provides that the legal adviser of a prisoner shall be given reasonable facilities to consult him on any legal business.   In particular, the interview shall take place in the sight but not in the hearing of an officer.   Standing Order Mf7 provides that in relation to a petition to the Commission a legal adviser may visit an inmate without first obtaining a visiting order and that visits between an inmate and his legal adviser for this purpose should be in sight, but not in the hearing of, a prison officer.           Restriction of association: Rule 36           Rule 36 of the Rules provides as follows:           "(1)   If at any time it appears to the Visiting Committee         or the Secretary of State that it is desirable for the         maintenance of good order or discipline, or in the         interests of a prisoner, that he should not be employed         in association with others, the Visiting Committee or         the Secretary of State may authorise the Governor to         arrange for him to work in a cell, and not in association,         for a period not exceeding one month from the date of         each authorisation.         (2)   The Governor may arrange for any such prisoner to         be employed in association again whenever he considers         this desirable, and he shall so arrange if in any case         the Medical Officer so advise on medical grounds."           Rule 36 does not require any placement to be at the request of the prisoner.   The judgment rests with the Secretary of State (or Visiting Committee).   However, removal from association at work under Rule 36 is normally applied at a prisoner's own request when the individual prisoner is seeking protection from other inmates (because of his offence, previous associations etc).   The use of Rule 36 at a prisoner's own request is not, however, confined to "protection". Rule 36 does not exclude removal from association at work at a prisoner's own request for other reasons.   Rule 36 is not a punishment for a disciplinary offence.   Disciplinary offences are punished in accordance with Rules 42 to 47 inclusive.     COMPLAINTS   1.       The applicant contends that he suffered inhuman and degrading treatment through being manacled throughout his appeal hearing.   He invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant complains that the conditions imposed on his solicitor on his visit to the applicant while in hospital (in particular the presence of police and prison officers, one of whom took part in the incident in which the applicant received his injury) attempted to intimidate him and in effect impeded the exercise of his right of access to Court.   The presence of the police and prison officers throughout the interview also interfered with his right to receive and impart information.   The applicant invokes in this respect Articles 6 para. 1 and 10 (Art. 6-1, Art. 10) of the Convention.   3.       He also complains that as a result of a desire to work on his petition and application to the European Commission of Human Rights he has been placed in solitary confinement.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION           The application was introduced on 5 July 1985 and registered on 8 August 1986.           On 6 March 1987, the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government in relation to the applicant's complaints concerning access to solicitor, being manacled in court and being kept in solitary confinement because of his intention to pursue his application to the Commission.   The respondent Government was invited to submit written observations on admissibility and merits pursuant to Rule 42(2)b of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission.   The Government was also invited for an explanation of the applicant's complaints of solitary confinement in the context of Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) in fine of the Convention.   The applicant's remaining complaints were held inadmissible in a partial decision on admissibility dated 6 March 1987.           Observations from the respondent Government were submitted on 2 June 1987 and observations in reply submitted by the applicant on 6 August 1987.           On 16 October 1987, the Commission decided to grant legal aid to the applicant in respect of his application.           On 9 March 1988, the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application concerning the issues arising under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention in relation to the handcuffing and the applicant's access to his solicitor.           At the hearing which was held on 13 July 1988, the parties were represented as follows:           The respondent Government           Mr.   M.C.Wood,         Agent         Mr.   G.W. Penrose,     Q.C.         Mrs.   M. Macdonald,    Scottish Office, Adviser         Mr.   C. Reeves,        Scottish Home and Health Department, Adviser         Miss L. Cumming,      Crown Office, Adviser         Mr.   C. McLean,        United Kingdom Permanent Representative                              to the Council of Europe           The applicant           Mr.   J. Carroll,       Solicitor         Mr.   D. Small,         Advocate     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES           A. THE RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT           1. The facts           The applicant was convicted of crimes which involved extreme violence, were carefully planned and carried out as part of a protracted and violent confrontation between rivals in the ice-cream war in Glasgow.           While in custody on remand from 14 May 1984, the applicant was under strict escape precautions (SEP).   Upon his conviction on 10 October 1984 he was classified in security category B, and remained on the SEP list.   Upon his transfer from Barlinnie to Peterhead Prison on 7 June 1985 the applicant remained as a category B prisoner and on the SEP list.   On 4 November 1985, following a serious escape attempt by a number of prisoners and the taking of hostages, the applicant and a number of others were reclassified as category A prisoners.   He has remained in this category and on the SEP list since then.           Category B prisoners are those who do not require maximum security but who ought to be kept in very secure conditions.   The classification of the applicant as category A reflected the view of the prison authorities that he should be regarded as a prisoner requiring the highest degree of security.   Classification in category   A is appropriate among other circumstances where the prisoner's violent behaviour is such that members of the public or the police would be in danger of their lives if he were at liberty.           The appeal           On the calling of his appeal on 16 May 1985 the applicant entered the Court with a cardboard box or carton full of papers.   As is customary with an appellant in custody he was flanked on either side by a prison officer.   During the hearing he remained handcuffed to one prison officer, his other hand remaining free.   Because of the potential security risk, in addition to the larger than usual number of prison officers in the building, police officers were also present in the court during the hearing of the appeal.           At the start of his submissions the applicant asked the Lord Justice Clerk, who presided, if he would order that the handcuffs be removed but this request was refused.   It is, however, understood that the Lord Justice Clerk suggested that the prison officer to whom the applicant was handcuffed should assist as much as he could with regard to access to the applicant's papers.           In the event, as the Court's Opinion bears out, the applicant did not require to consult his papers regularly during the presentation of his appeal.   All the papers which he had lodged with the Clerk of Justiciary prior to the hearing had been copied for each of the three judges and the Crown were also in possession of copies. Further, the applicant had prepared a written "summary of his grounds of appeal", copies of which he produced at the hearing for each of the judges and for the Crown.           Owing to an increased concern regarding a possible security risk in the event that the applicant's appeal was refused, there was a police presence at court on 4 June when the Court's Opinion was delivered and a police escort was provided for the prison in which the applicant was conveyed to and from prison.           Peterhead Prison, 7 June - 4 November 1985           The Government explain that at Peterhead Prison most inmates are required to go to workshops, where appropriate work is provided, for approximately four hours per day.   This requirement ensures a period of time out of cell in association with other prisoners as well as constructive activity for the individual.   Inmates are only excused work, and allowed to remain in their cells, for medical reasons on the advice of the Medical Office.   Some inmates, engaged on domestic duties, do not go to workshops but are still required to work on specified duties under supervision at other locations in the prison. At Peterhead Prison, the normal weekday régime centres on periods of employment in the workshops or on specific domestic duties during the day.   Apart from those under medical observation (who have to remain in their cells) all other prisoners are taken from the main halls (A and D Halls) to place of work elsewhere in the prison.   Refusal to work is a disciplinary offence under Rule 42(3).   Any prisoner who refuses to work after a disciplinary adjudication may be punished, in accordance with Rule 43, with punishments such as loss of privileges.           At Peterhead Prison, prisoners who have to be held out of normal association are located in the separate cells block (which has 15 cells).   The separate cells are used for prisoners who have been removed from association at work, in accordance with Rule 36, at their own request or at the Governor's initiative in the interests of good order and discipline.   They are also used for prisoners who have received punishments of cellular confinement.   While in the separate cells at Peterhead the applicant was in the cell for between 22 and 23 hours per day, with the remainder of the time outside his cell for exercise and ablutions.   He was not, however, denied access to and use of personal property, including his radio, nor to facilities for the preparation of his Strasbourg case.   In particular, his location in the separate cells in no way affected his entitlement to visit from family and friends or from his solicitor.           Subsequently, on or about 16 August 1985, the Assistant Governor discussed the situation with the applicant and sought to persuade him to return to the normal routine of the prison.   The applicant refused since he considered that he would not receive adequate provision for study.           On 9 August 1985 the Governor of Peterhead Prison requested authority for the applicant to continue to be placed on Rule 36 conditions for one month from 11 August 1985.   The request indicated that the applicant continued to be busily engaged with legal correspondence and that he still did not wish to return to normal circulation, although free to do so.   In giving authority for the continued use of Rule 36 the Department asked whether the prisoner could not be persuaded to return to normal circulation.           On 16 August 1985, following discussion with the applicant, an Assistant Governor at Peterhead reported to the Department that the applicant could not be persuaded to return to normal circulation and would not consider such a move to be in his best interests while he had to "concentrate on his appeal".   The applicant had indicated that he accepted the likelihood of punishment following such a refusal but suggested the "absolute remedy" - a transfer to the Barlinnie Special Unit.           The applicant remained on Rule 36 conditions until a serious incident took place in the separate cells in Peterhead Prison on 2 November 1985.   Following the incident the applicant was relocated in B Hall of the prison.   There was a further incident in B Hall on 3 November, and in the early morning of 4 November the applicant was transferred to Aberdeen Royal Infirmary after complaining of abdominal pains.           Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, 4 - 12 November 1985           In the interests of security the cooperation of the local (Grampian) police was requested in respect of the applicant's detention at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary.   In hospital the applicant was attended at all times by two prison officers.           The applicant's solicitor, Mr.   Carroll, arrived at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary to see his client at about 13.30 on 10 November 1985. He refused to be searched by the uniformed police officers on duty and insisted on the attendance of CID officers.   Not more than 40 minutes later three CID officers arrived.   Mr.   Carroll was informed that he could visit the applicant only if he consented to being searched.   The visit started at about 14.15 and finished at about 16.00.   The room in which the visit took place was a single room, located several storeys from the ground, which the applicant occupied as the only patient. For the duration of the interview the two prison officers and three police officers withdrew from the room to the corridor leaving the door open.   They remained some ten feet away from the solicitor and his client.           Peterhead and Barlinnie prison, November 1985 - 1987           Following an incident at Barlinnie Prison on 1 January 1987 the applicant was placed in solitary confinement under Rule 36.   In May 1987, the applicant was returned to Peterhead but was again transferred to Barlinnie following a hunger-strike.   He apparently has been since kept in the prison hospital at Barlinnie in the interests of good order and discipline in the prison.           2. Admissibility and merits           Interference with access to solicitor: Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)           The Government do not accept that the prison authorities or the police refused to allow the applicant to have a consultation with his solicitor out of the hearing of prison or police officers.   It was in the circumstances perfectly feasible for the applicant and the solicitor to talk without being overheard by the officers, who were outside the room in a hospital corridor and remained some ten feet distant.           The Government would further recall that in paragraph 113 of the Campbell and Fell judgment (Eur.   Court H.R., Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A No. 80), the Court indicated that, as was pointed out by the Commission, "there may well be security considerations which would justify some restriction on the conditions for visits by a lawyer to a prisoner".   And paragraph 159 of the Commission's report in Campbell and Fell reads:           "The Commission recognises that there may be specific         circumstances in which some interference in the contact         between a lawyer and other persons may be justified (see         e.g.   Application No. 8290/78, A, B, C and D v. the Federal         Republic of Germany, Decisions and Reports No. 18 p. 176;         Application No. 8463/78, Kröcher and Möller v.   Switzerland,         Decision of 9 July 1983)."           Thus it is not every interference with access to legal advice that hinders the effective exercise of the right of access to court. Further those cases where the Convention organs previously considered temporary hindrance of access involved being substantial delays of months or even years.           In the Government's submission, any restrictions placed on the conditions for Mr.   Carroll's visit on 10 November 1985 were amply justified by security considerations.   The applicant was a category A prisoner, that is to say, one who ought to be kept in very secure conditions and was temporarily in a civilian hospital, the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, where the normal facilities for prison visits were not available.   While there was a sealed observation window giving a view into the room from the corridor, the door was also kept open as it was considered that direct access into the room was required to enable immediate response to any situation requiring police intervention.   For the reasons given above, the Government submit that there was, in the circumstances of this case, no interference with the applicant's right of access to a court.   In the alternative, the Government submit that any interference was clearly justified by security considerations.           Handcuffing before the Appeal Court: Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)           The Government would first recall that the fact that an accused appears in court in handcuffs is less significant in appeal proceedings (where the accused has already been convicted and where no jury is present) than in the trial itself.   In any event, the applicant's complaint appears to be essentially that the handcuffs prevented him from consulting his papers properly.   The Government submit that this complaint is unsupported by the facts.   In the Government's submission, the fact of the applicant being handcuffed by one hand during his appeal did not in practice impede his ability to consult his papers.   Moreover, it is difficult to see how the applicant can claim that he was "considerably hampered" in presenting his appeal when the Court's Opinion discloses that he made his submissions by reading from a document which had been prepared in advance and which he himself described as "summary of his grounds of appeal".   The applicant also stated that his submissions were all included in the summary and he asked and was given permission to read this document to the court.   When he was finished he was asked if he wished to add anything to what he had already said and he replied in the negative.   He indicated at no time that he was in any way prevented from having access to any document.           The Government would recall that the applicant was given a second opportunity to address the court: he requested and was given permission to answer some of the points made by the Advocate Depute. As the Court's Opinion explains a second or further speech is contrary to the normal procedure in criminal appeals but nevertheless the permission was granted.   The applicant had been legally represented at his trial and received the assistance of his solicitors in preparation of his appeal.   It was as a result of his own decision that he presented his own appeal.           The Government stress that the applicant was afforded every opportunity to present his submissions on his grounds of appeal and was shown considerable indulgence by the court at the hearing.   The handcuffing may have amounted to an inconvenience but it is submitted that mere inconvenience does not constitute a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1).   In conclusion, the Government would recall the constant case-law of the Convention organs whereby the fairness of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) "must be decided on basis of a consideration of the trial as a whole, and not on the basis of an isolated consideration of one particular aspect of the trial or one particular incident" and would submit that, in the circumstances, the applicant was afforded a fair hearing and that no violation of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) occurred.     Article 25 para. 1 in fine (Art. 25-1)           There is no factual basis for the assertion that by placing of the applicant on Rule 36 conditions the authorities hindered the effective exercise of the applicant's right to apply to the Commission. The placing of the applicant on Rule 36 conditions was in no sense aimed at deterring the applicant from making such an application or punishing him.   On the contrary, as is explained above, the measure was taken, at the applicant's option, so as to enable him to devote more of his time to his application than would have been possible under the ordinary prison régime.           While Rule 36 covers a removal from association at work, and normally also has the effect of removal from recreation and association, it is not a punishment and does not involve the removal of other privileges.   The applicant had explained to him the consequences of his wanting to pursue his application full-time (in the separate cells at Peterhead) as opposed to part-time (in the time available to him in the evenings and weekends) and opted of his own volition to be placed on Rule 36 conditions.   His being on Rule 36 conditions resulted from his own wish to pursue his Strasbourg application full-time.   Prison management might have disregarded this wish and insisted that the applicant participate in the normal prison régime and face the disciplinary consequences of refusal to work.           Repeated efforts were made to persuade the applicant to return to normal circulation at Peterhead but did not succeed because of his preference to work full-time on his case.           The Government submit that it is clear that the applicant's placement on Rule 36 conditions in no way hindered the exercise of his right to petition the Commission but was in fact the result of his insistence that he had to work on his application full-time.   Thus placement on Rule 36 facilitated the applicant's application.   Had he taken part in the normal régime at Peterhead the applicant would have worked in prison industry leaving him evenings and weekends for the preparation of his case.           Finally, the Government would recall that some of the periods which the applicant spent on Rule 36 conditions had no connection with the preparation of his case in Strasbourg.             B. THE APPLICANT           1. The facts           The applicant does not admit that he was under "short escape precautions" while a remand prisoner.   He contends that he has never been involved in any attempt or escape and that there is no reason to believe that he was likely to become so involved.   The applicant notes that he was classified as category B following conviction.           The appeal           The applicant states that he was at all times handcuffed by his right hand to a prison officer.   He is right-handed.   The applicant has no knowledge of the "security risk" or "increased concern" over security to which the respondent Government refer as justification for their actions.           The applicant denies that any suggestion was even made to the effect that any prison officer should assist him with his papers.   The applicant notes that at his trial neither he nor his co-accused were required to remain in handcuffs.   He is also ignorant of the reasons for the decision to classify him as category A in November 1985.           Peterhead Prison, 7 June - 4 November 1985           On transfer to Peterhead on 7 June 1985 the applicant was informed that the only facility that could be made available, if he persisted in his appeal and application to the Commission, would be under Rule 36 of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952.   This rule provides for withdrawal of association at work and allows for a prisoner, where it is in his interests, to carry out work in his cell.   It does not provide for cellular confinement, which is provided for elsewhere in the Rules as a punishment in itself.   The applicant was told that the invoking of Rule 36 would involve him being in a cell in the separate cell block of the prison.   Since then the applicant has made repeated requests to be allowed the normal facility of association and recreation albeit accepting that he would not be employed in association with other prisoners as clearly stated in the Prison (Scotland) Rules.           The respondent Government states that refusal to work is a disciplinary offence subject to punishment under Rule 43.   This rule provides for cellular confinement, i.e. solitary confinement, as a distinct and separate punishment in itself.   If it is the Respondent's argument that the applicant was placed on Rule 36 at his own insistence and in regard to his own interests then it seems remarkable that the separate and distinct punishment of cellular confinement should be imposed in addition thereto.   Accordingly, the applicant is driven to the conclusion that Rule 36 as it is applied to him is a form of punishment for which no provision is made under the specific provision.   In addition, the sworn testimony of a prison officer, during the trial in the High Court at Peterhead, made it plain that the applicant was being kept in solitary confinement because of his complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights.   The applicant also submits that the Secretary of State's reply of 12 Jul