CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 15 décembre 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 }  Application No. 11523/85     Harry GRACE     against   the UNITED KINGDOM                 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 15 December 1988)     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  page   I.       INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-18) ............................    1-3           A.   The application (paras. 2-5) ......................     1           B.   The proceedings (paras. 6-13) .....................    1-2           C.   The present Report (paras. 14-18) .................    2-3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 19-50) .............    4-10           A.   The particular circumstances of the case             (paras. 19-34) ....................................    4-7           B.   The relevant domestic law and practice             (paras. 35-50) ....................................    7-10     III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 51-67) .............    11-14           A.   The applicant (paras. 51-53) ......................      11           B.   The Government (paras. 54-67) .....................    11-14     IV.    OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 68-131) ...............    15-28           A.   Points at issue (para. 68) ........................      15           B.   General considerations (paras. 69-99) .............    15-23               a) As regards Article 8 of the Convention                (paras. 69-97) .................................    15-22                  aa) The case-law of the Convention organs                    (paras. 70-82) .............................    15-19                  bb) Matters outside the scope of the previous                    case-law of the Convention organs                    (paras. 83-97) .............................    19-22               b) As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention                (paras. 98-99) .................................    22-23           C.   The present case (paras. 100-121) .................    23-27               a) As regards Article 8 of the Convention                (paras. 100-118) ...............................    23-26                  aa) Letter 1 (para. 101) ........................     23                      Conclusion (para. 102) ......................     23                  bb) Letters 2 and 5 (para. 103) .................     24                      Conclusion (para. 104) ......................     24                  cc) Letters 3, 6 and 9 (para. 105) ...............    24                      Conclusion (para. 106) .......................    24                  dd) Letter 4 (para. 107) .........................    24                      Conclusion (para. 108) .......................    25                  ee) Letter 7 (para. 109) .........................    25                      Conclusion (para. 110) .......................    25                  ff) Letter 8 (para. 111) .........................    25                      Conclusion (para. 112) .......................    25                  gg) Letter 10 (para. 113) ........................   25-26                      Conclusion (para. 114) .......................    26                  hh) Letters 11 and 12 (para. 115) ................    26                      Conclusion (para. 116) .......................    26                  ii) Letter 13 (para. 117) ........................    26                      Conclusion (para. 118) .......................    26               b) As regards Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention                (paras. 119-121) .................................    27                  aa) Letters 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12                    (paras. 119-120) .............................    27                  bb) Conclusion (para. 121) .......................    27           D.   Recapitulation (paras. 122-131) .....................   27-28     Dissenting opinion of MM. Vandenberghe and Rozakis ..............    29         APPENDIX I       History of the proceedings                 before the Commission ...........................   30-31   APPENDIX II      Decision on the admissibility                 of the application ..............................   32-4   I.       INTRODUCTION     1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1942, who at the time of lodging his application was detained in H.M. Prison, Parkhurst.   He was released from prison in February 1987 and is now resident in Widness, Cheshire.   3.       The applicant was unrepresented before the Commission.   The Government were represented by their Agents, Mrs.   A. Glover, succeeded by MM. M.R. Eaton and M.C. Wood, all of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   4.       The applicant has made two previous applications to the Commission.   His first application (No. 9551/81) was declared partially inadmissible on 1 March 1982 and partially admissible on 4 March 1985 as to the complaint relating to the censorship of prisoners' correspondence.   The Committee of Ministers found a breach of Article 8 of the Convention in that case (Resolution DH (87) 3, see also Comm.   Report 18.10.85).   His second application, concerning the refusal of leave to appeal out of time against conviction (No. 10951/84), was declared inadmissible on 4 March 1985.   5.       In the present application the applicant complains of a further allegedly unjustified interference with his right to respect for correspondence, ensured by Article 8 of the Convention, as regards the stopping by prison authorities of 12 of his letters and as regards a lack of information about the posting of another letter.   In respect of five of the letters in question the applicant also complains of a breach of his right of access to court, ensured by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   6.       The application was introduced on 27 March 1985 and registered on 2 May 1985.   It concerned the alleged interference by prison authorities with a total of 14 letters.   7.       On 3 June 1985 the Rapporteur, pursuant to Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, requested information from the Government concerning the factual circumstances of the alleged interference with the 14 letters in question.   The Government submitted the information requested on 11 October 1985, to which the applicant replied on 30 October and 19 November 1985.   8.       On 5 May 1986 the Commission decided in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present before 18 July 1986 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application.   The Government submitted their observations on 1 October 1986, to which the applicant replied on 27 October 1986.   9.       On 4 March 1987 the Commission declared the application admissible as regards an interference with 13 of the letters cited by the applicant.   It also found the complaint of censorship concerning one of the letters manifestly ill-founded and, therefore, inadmissible, pursuant to Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.   10.      On 8 April 1987 the parties were invited to submit their written conclusions on the merits of the application.   On 28 April 1987 the Government informed the Commission that they did not propose to submit further evidence or observations in the case.   A similar response was received from the applicant on 21 June 1987.   11.      On 4 March 1988 the Commission considered the merits of the application and took their final votes on the case excepting the conclusions at paras. 107-112 below.   On 10 March 1988 the Commission decided to invite the parties to submit their written observations on the merits of the application of the simultaneous ventilation rule to three of the applicant's letters.   The Government submitted their observations on 29 April 1988.   On 22 July 1988 the applicant informed the Commission that he left the matter in the hands of the Convention organs.   12.      On 6 December 1988 the Commission considered the merits of the outstanding question of the simultaneous ventilation rule and took their final votes on this aspect of the case (paras. 107-112 below). On 15 December 1988 the Commission adopted the text of the Report.   13.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. b of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis upon which a settlement can be reached.   C.       The present Report   14.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present (1):                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H. DANELIUS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY   -----    (1)   The Composition of the Commission of 4 March 1988 when the         Commission took the final votes at paragraphs 102, 104, 106,         114, 116, 118 and 121 was as follows: MM. Nørgaard, Trechsel,         Ermacora, Busuttil, Gözübüyük, Weitzel, Soyer, Danelius,         Batliner, Campinos and Vandenberghe, Mrs.   Thune, Sir Basil         Hall, MM. Martinez and Rozakis and Mrs.   Liddy.     15.      The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 15 December 1988 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   16.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           1)       to establish the facts, and           2)       to state an opinion as to whether the facts found                 disclose a breach by the State concerned of its                 obligations under the Convention.   17.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix II.   18.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS     A.       The particular circumstances of the case   19.      Whilst the applicant was detained in prison 12 of his letters were stopped by the prison authorities and, as regards a further letter, the prison authorities did not inform the applicant that it had been returned by the Post Office undelivered.   These letters are as follows:   20.      Letter 1, whilst the applicant was at H.M. Prison Liverpool, dated 17 February 1980 and addressed to G.H.         In this letter the applicant asked G. H. to find a woman with whom he could correspond and have visits.   It was apparently stopped by the prison authorities for contravening Standing Order 5 A 23 (3), prohibiting prisoners' correspondence with persons unknown to them prior to their imprisonment and prohibiting the seeking of pen friends.   21.      Letter 2, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Hull, dated 19 August 1980 and addressed to H.H.         In this letter to a friend the applicant provided news and comments about his family, friends and acquaintances.   Permission was given for the letter to be posted after a security check, but apparently the instructions were not carried out.   22.      Letter 3, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Hull, dated 5 July 1982 and addressed to C.G.         The applicant used a letter intended for his legal adviser to write to his daughter principally about domestic matters because, as he said in the letter, he had already used his ordinary letter allowance that week.   One paragraph of the four page letter informs his daughter about a forthcoming visit from his solicitor and a police investigation relating to his last trial.   It is recorded in the "Submitted letters book" that the applicant was abusing the legal letter privilege.   Accordingly the letter was stopped because it failed to meet the requirements for legal letters laid down in Standing Order 5 B 11.   23.      Letter 4, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Hull, undated and addressed to P.H. (Solicitor).         In this letter the applicant confirmed details of a recent consultation that he had had with his solicitor at the prison and complained, inter alia, that he was being victimised by being moved to another wing of the prison because he had asked his solicitor to write a letter of complaint to his prison governor concerning another matter.   He requested a further consultation with the solicitor for advice about the alleged harassment.   Although there is no specific record of why the letter was stopped, the Government have suggested it may have been stopped for containing unventilated complaints about prison treatment, contrary to the simultaneous ventilation rule applicable at the time (Standing Order 5 B 34j).   There is no evidence to support the applicant's allegation that he was not informed of the censorship and given the opportunity, as was standard practice, to raise the complaint through the internal channels or immediately rewrite his letter omitting the offending elements.   24.      Letter 5, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Hull, undated and addressed to J.R.         This letter concerned visiting orders which the applicant had sent out and a question whether the persons concerned could visit him. There is no record of the reasons for censorship or any indication in the letter of why it should have been stopped.   25.      Letter 6, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Hull, dated 15 August 1982 and addressed to B.Y.         The applicant used a letter intended for his legal adviser to write to a friend about purely personal matters, and about possible visits in particular.   It was stopped for abusing the legal letter privilege laid down in Standing Order 5 B 11 (cf. letter 3 para. 22 above).   26.      Letter 7, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Liverpool, dated 7 August 1983 and addressed to G.O. (Member of Parliament).         In this letter the applicant alleged that an inmate, who had committed suicide, had been ill-treated by prison officers, and that another inmate had been assaulted.   It was stopped because it contained unventilated complaints, contrary to Standing Order 5 B 34j. The prison records note that the applicant was called up by the assistant prison governor and informed of the censorship, of the internal ventilation procedure and of the possibility of immediately rewriting the letter omitting the offending elements.   27.      Letter 8, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Liverpool, dated 10 August 1983 and addressed to K.O., Chief Constable of the Liverpool Police.         The letter was stopped for the same reason as letter 7, for it contained the same allegations.   The assistant prison governor investigated these allegations of ill-treatment of another prisoner, after which the applicant was allowed a special letter to write to the Chief Constable, who ordered a police investigation of the matter.   28.      Letter 9, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Albany, dated 24 August 1983 and addressed to C.R.         This stopped letter was to a friend and briefly described, inter alia, part of the applicant's trial, but it was not deemed to satisfy the criteria of a legal letter, in accordance with Standing Order 5 B 11, for which purpose it had been issued.   That is to say, although the applicant in part discussed matters related to legal business in the letter, it was considered to be a "domestic" letter rather than "in connection with the proceedings" in the sense of furthering the applicant's legal affairs (see letters 3 and 6 paras. 22 and 25 above).   29.      Letter 10, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Albany, dated 23 November 1983 and addressed to the General Medical Council.         The applicant was issued with a special letter to write a letter of complaint about the prison medical service to the General Medical Council.   The letter was posted, but subsequently returned by the Post Office marked "insufficiently addressed".   The applicant was not informed of this occurrence at the relevant time.   30.      Letter 11, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Wandsworth, dated 21 May 1984 and addressed to the applicant's trial judge.         The letter concerned allegations of an "illegal cover-up" by the trial judge, the prosecution and defence counsel in his case.   He accused the judge of "corrupt acts" and declared as follows:           "I will hound and persecute you until you eventually tell         the truth concerning myself and what took place.   It is no         great mental exercise for me to locate your home and you         can rest assured that upon my eventual release from prison         you will find me at your door.   I shall have the truth out         of you then ....   I will definitely have the truth from         your lips, in any way I possibly can ....   I give you another         opportunity to tell the truth and hope you have the sense to         divulge it now."           The letter was stopped for containing threats, contrary to Standing Order 5 B 34f.   31.      Letter 12, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Wandsworth, dated 23 May 1984 and addressed to the same trial judge.         In this letter the applicant described as "devious" and "evil" the conspiracy to cover up a "major scandal", for which conspiracy he held the trial judge responsible.   He stated that he would expose his case to the media, go to the judge's home and would not give up until the judge relents and tells the truth:           "If I have to be further arrested in the years to come,         I will be, and I will make sure your life is hell until         you tell the whole truth of what you were a party to ....         I hope your conscience eventually causes you to tell the         truth.   If it does not I will continue to hound you until         you tell the truth."           This letter was also stopped for containing threats, contrary to Standing Order 5 B 34f.   32.      Letter 13, whilst the applicant was detained at H.M. Prison Albany, dated 28 June 1984 and addressed to E.C.         The letter was addressed to another inmate and in it the applicant wrote about prison life in the following manner:           "I'm sorry to hear your move to L/L was a (NURSERY RHYME)         so to speak.   However, not to worry, you're adopting the         right (TACTICS) now and you won't fall for the stories         again.   I DID TRY TO TELL YOU HOW THEY WORK ... once they         realise you are (GULLIBLE) they are masters at feeding         you STRAWBERRIES ALL DAY ....           How's (PRP), still as amusing as ever (BANG).   I'll show         him what amusement is, I can tell you ...."           There is no surviving record of the reason for the censorship of the letter, but the Government have suggested that it was probably stopped either for being an unauthorised letter to another inmate, contrary to Standing Order 5 B 26, or for containing cryptic references to individuals and "methods" used by prison staff, contrary to Standing Order 5 B 34e.   33.      The applicant complained in separate petitions to the Home Secretary about the censorship of letters 11 and 12.   His petitions were rejected in October and December 1984.   The applicant also petitioned the Home Secretary on 21 April 1985 concerning the censorship of all the letters, save letter 7, once the extent of the censorship of his letters had been confirmed by the assistant prison governor during the week commencing 15 April 1985.   34.      In the latter petition he alleged violations of Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.   On 31 October 1985 the Home Secretary decided to take no action whilst the applicant's complaints were pending before the Commission.   B.       The relevant domestic law and practice   35.      By virtue of the Prison Act 1952 the Home Secretary is responsible for prisoners and may make rules "for the regulation and management of prisons ... and for the classification, treatment, employment, discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein" (Section 47 (1) Prison Act 1952).   Such rules are contained in statutory instruments laid before Parliament, presently the Prison Rules 1964, as amended.   36.      Rule 33 (1) of those Rules states the Home Secretary's discretion to control prisoners' communications, either generally or in a particular case, for the maintenance of discipline and good order, the prevention of crime or the protection of the interests of any person.   It is only with the Home Secretary's leave that a prisoner may communicate with the outside world, the prison governor or authorised prison officer having the power to examine correspondence and stop any which is "objectionable" (Rule 33 (2) and (3)).   In particular, Rule 34 (8) prohibits communications "with any person in connection with any legal or other business, or with any person other than a relative or friend, except with the leave of the Secretary of State".   37.      With a view to securing uniformity of practice throughout prison establishments, the Home Secretary also issues to prison governors management guidelines in the form of Standing Orders or Circular Instructions.   At the material time, the Standing Orders further delimited prisoners' rights to correspond, the following examples being relevant to the present case:   38.      Standing Order 5 A 23 (3) limited correspondence with persons not personally known to the prisoner before he was detained, and forbade the seeking of pen friends.   This restriction was abolished with the general reform of censorship rules and practices which came into force on 1 December 1981.   It was relevant to the censorship of letter 1 (para. 20 above).   39.      Standing Order 5 B 40, concerning the circumvention or evasion of regulations, prohibits an inmate asking "another person to make a communication on his behalf which he would not be allowed to make himself direct".   Considerations concerning the justification for such a rule are relevant to the censorship of letters 3, 6 and 9 (paras. 22, 25 and 28 above) and the comparable alleged abuse of regulations by the applicant.   40.      Standing Order 5 B 11 permits "a convicted inmate who is a party to legal proceedings (including an appeal against conviction or sentence) (to) have extra letters on application, provided that the letter is in connection with the proceedings".   The proviso in this Standing Order was relevant to the censorship of letters 3, 6 and 9 (paras. 22, 25 and 28 above).   41.      Standing Order 5 B 34j provides that "general correspondence" may not contain the following:           "Complaints about prison treatment which the inmate has not         yet raised through the prescribed procedures unless the         complaints are about a matter already decided at region or         headquarters or the complaints are about a matter which         does not require investigation or on which no corrective         or remedial action is possible, such as complaints of a         general nature about conditions, e.g. about overcrowding         or poor facilities, which are basically descriptive of the         conditions the inmate is experiencing and his feelings about         them.   As soon as a complaint about prison treatment has         been made through the prescribed procedures it may be         mentioned in correspondence...   Statements about prison         treatment are not treated as complaints when they are         matters of fact, e.g. that an inmate has suffered injury,         or that he has been punished for an offence against prison         discipline, or that he is in the process of making a         complaint through the proper channels."   This restriction, otherwise known as the simultaneous ventilation rule, was relevant to the censorship of letters 4, 7 and 8 (paras. 23, 26 and 27 above).   Since 1984 it has not applied to legal correspondence, so letter 4 would no longer be stopped.   This reform in respect of correspondence with lawyers was a result of the case of R v.   Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Anderson ((1984) 1 All ER 920), in which it was held that the prerequisite of making a written complaint to the prison governor before being allowed access to a solicitor impeded the right of access to court because it exposed the prisoner to the possibility of being charged under Rule 47 (12) of the Prison Rules 1964 with the disciplinary offence of making a false and malicious allegation against a prison officer.   The simultaneous ventilation rule was, therefore, deemed ultra vires (Section 47 (1) of the Prison Act 1952 and Rule 33 of the Prison Rules 1964).   42.      The simultaneous ventilation rule operates in practice as follows:   an outgoing letter which offends against the simultaneous ventilation rule is not sent.   The prisoner is informed that his letter has been stopped and told that he should make his complaints in the prescribed manner before a letter containing those complaints may be posted.   The stopped letter is filed in his record and he is given the opportunity of re-writing it.   If he chooses to re-write it omitting the complaints, that letter is posted without more.   If he chooses to make a complaint internally he may re-write his letter, repeating or modifying the complaints as he chooses.   43.      As mentioned above in paragraph 41, reinforcing the simultaneous ventilation rule is the disciplinary offence, pursuant to Rule 47 (12) of the Prison Rules 1964, for a prisoner to make false and malicious allegations against a prison officer.   A prisoner will,   however, not be proceeded against for such an offence unless he has made his complaint formally and following a warning designed to ensure that he is fully aware of his position.   This is to ensure that prisoners are not proceeded against on the basis of insubstantial evidence or in respect of complaints made in ignorance of the consequences.   The form of document commonly given to a prisoner who wishes to make a complaint against a member of staff is as follows:           "Having indicated that you wish to make a complaint         against a member of staff, the following warning is         administered, not to put pressure upon you, but to         make sure you understand your position.   If you believe         a member of staff has behaved improperly you are right         to report the matter and if you can show that what you         say is true, you have nothing to fear.   On the other         hand a false and malicious allegation by an inmate         against a member of staff is a disciplinary offence.         An allegation is false and malicious if the allegation         is untrue, and you make it knowing it to be untrue or         without caring whether it is true or not.   Do you         understand that?   It is for you to decide whether you         wish to pursue your complaint.   If you do, your complaint         will be fully investigated and you will not have another         opportunity to withdraw it.   It will be up to you to show         that what you say is true or at least that you have good         reason for believing it to be true.   If the investigation         appears to show that your allegation is false and that         you either knew it was false or did not care whether it         was true or false, you may be charged with making a false         and malicious allegation against an officer.   If on         reflection you wish to withdraw your complaint, you may         do so and that will be the end of the matter.   If having         considered the matter you wish to continue you:   (i) must         make a full written statement of your complaints; (ii) may         add any further relevant information to the written statement         you have already made; (iii) must give the name of any person         who you wish to give evidence."   44.      Standing Order 5 B 34f prohibits correspondence containing "threats of violence or of damage to property likely to induce fear in the recipient".   This restriction was relevant to the censorship of letters 11 and 12 (paras. 30 and 31 above).   45.      Standing Order 5 B 26 states that "correspondence with another convicted inmate requires the approval of both governors". Approval "should be given unless there is reason to believe that such correspondence will seriously impede the rehabilitation of either, or where it would be desirable, in the interests of security or good order or discipline, that the inmates concerned should be separated from each other, or prevented from communicating with each other".   This requirement was relevant to the censorship of letter 13 (para. 32 above).   Prior to December 1981 correspondence between prisoners was not generally allowed.   46.      Standing Order 5 B 34e prohibits correspondence containing "obscure or coded messages which are not readily intelligible or decipherable".   This prohibition was also relevant to the censorship of letter 13 (para. 32 above).   47.      The regulations in England and Wales governing the stopping of prisoners' correspondence were revised in 1981 in the light of the relevant provisions of the Convention and the Commission's Report in the case of Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom (Comm.   Report 11.10.80, Eur.   Court H.R., Series B No. 51).   48.      Circular Instruction 34/1981, issued on 31 August 1981 to accompany the new censorship practices contained in Standing Order 5, operative as of 1 December 1981, provides as follows:           "When a letter has been stopped the inmate should be         informed without delay that it has been stopped, told the         reason ... and given the opportunity to rewrite the letter.         The fact that he has been so told should be recorded" (part B         para. 12).   49.      Since the communication of the present case to the respondent Government, instructions have been issued to improve record keeping and storage, including a record as to whether the prisoner has been informed that his correspondence has been stopped.   Instructions have also been issued so that prisoners are to be given their outgoing letters if they are returned by the Post Office undelivered (cf. letter 10 para. 29 above).   50.      Since 1 December 1981 the censorship rules contained in Standing Order 5 have been notified to prisoners; prior to that they were confidential.   III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES     A.       The applicant   51.      The applicant contends that there has been an unjustified interference with his correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.   He also claims to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the censorship of letters 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12.   52.      The applicant alleges that he was not informed of the censorship of each of his letters at the material time and that he only discovered the extent of the interference with his correspondence when informed by an assistant prison governor during the week commencing 15 April 1985.   53.      As regards the individual letters, the applicant makes the following comments on the disputed justification for censorship:           Letter 3:   Although written to his daughter, the         applicant claims that it did contain legal matters even if         there were other more mundane subjects in the letter.           Letters 11 and 12:   The applicant alleges that these         letters to his trial judge "did not contain direct threats         at all" and that they were stopped illegally in order to         harass him.   B.       The Government   54.      The Government concede that the interference with letters 2 and 5 was apparently an administrative error and that the facts regarding the stopping of letter 13 are obscure.   They also point out that, in view of the reform of the prison censorship rules and practices, letters 1 and 4 would no longer be stopped for the reasons then applying.   55.      However, as regards letter 10, it is contended that there was no interference with the applicant's right to respect for correspondence, contrary to Article 8 para. 1 of the Convention.   56.      As regards letters 3, 6, 9, 11 and 12, the Government submit that they were stopped for good reason under the relevant Standing Orders.   Accordingly, the resultant interference with the applicant's right to respect for correspondence was justified under Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention, as being in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for one or other of the reasons prescribed in that provision.   57.      The Government state that, although the records in the applicant's case are incomplete, there is no reason to suppose that the applicant was not adequately informed of each incident of censorship, except presumably in respect of letter 2 which was supposed to have been posted.   It is normal practice for prisoners to be informed immediately of the stopping of any of their letters and to be given an opportunity to rewrite them omitting the offending parts.   58.      As regards letters 4, 7 and 8, the Government state that these three letters were stopped for failing to observe the simultaneous ventilation rule (paras. 41-43 above).   This regulation was introduced in 1981 to comply with the Commission's opinion, upheld by the Court, that the requirements of prison security and administration would be satisfied by a system of internal enquiry based upon a simultaneous ventilation rule rather than the prior ventilation rule, which had previously been in operation (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Comm.   Report 11.10.80, Eur.   Court H.R., Series B no 51, paras. 301-302 and 313).   59.      The primary objective of the regulation is to ensure swift and thorough investigation of complaints.   This is in the interests of both prisoners and staff.   Its purpose is not to limit allegations against staff but to ensure that such allegations are promptly dealt with in a way that is fair to prisoners and prison officers alike.   60.      It is fundamental to the good order and discipline of a prison that complaints about prison treatment are communicated to the prison governor as soon as they arise and that an investigation can be made and appropriate action taken as soon as possible.   In this respect it would be most unsatisfactory if complaints about prison treatment were being aired outside the prison before the prison authorities have had a chance to investigate and remedy the matter of which complaint is made.   Malpractices in a closed institution can affect the lives of all those who have to live and work in the institution.   It is, therefore, of the greatest benefit to them that complaints about the running of such institutions should be speedily investigated and resolved.   61.      It is particularly important that complaints against members of staff should be speedily investigated.   If a prisoner makes an allegation against an officer, which on investigation seems well founded, it may be necessary to suspend the officer from duty.   On the other hand a prisoner might make an allegation against an officer which on investigation seems to be false and malicious.   By virtue of Rule 47 (12) of the Prison Rules 1964 it is a disciplinary offence to make a false and malicious allegation against an officer.   It would be difficult to bring such a charge if the prisoner had not made his allegation in prison.   62.      It is necessary that the prisoner be required to make his complaint in a formal and detailed way in order that it can be properly and speedily investigated.   In this context the Government repeat that a complaint made about the conduct of an officer, may lead to a charge being brought under Prison Rule 47 (12) (see para. 43 above).   In these circumstances it is clearly necessary that there should be a clear and detailed statement of the complaint.   This means in practice that the letter has to be stopped; a proper internal investigation could not simply proceed on the basis of the material contained in the offending letter, which might be insufficiently precise or incomplete.   The practice of retaining the stopped letter in the prisoner's record is designed to ensure that the letter will be available if a question should subsequently arise as to whether the simultaneous ventilation rule was properly applied, or if it is needed for the purpose of any internal inquiry.   However, this practice does not prejudice the prisoner, because he has the choice of repeating the material in a subsequent letter, or modifying it, as he choos