CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 4 mai 1989

.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 }    Application No. 9511/81       Michael McCALLUM     against     the UNITED KINGDOM                   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 4 May 1989)     - i -   9511/81     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                       page     I.       INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-18) ............................    1-3           A.   The application (paras. 2-4) ......................     1           B.   The proceedings (paras. 5-13) .....................    1-2           C.   The present Report (paras. 14-18) .................    2-3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 19-26) .............    4-6           A.   The particular circumstances of the case             (paras. 19-23) ....................................    4-5           B.   The relevant domestic law and practice             (paras. 24-26) ....................................    5-6     III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 27-41) .............    7-9           A.   The applicant (paras. 27-30) ......................     7           B.   The Government (paras. 31-41) .....................    7-9     IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 42-85) ..............    10-20           A.   Points at issue (para. 42) ........................     10           B.   Article 8 of the Convention             (paras. 43-62) ....................................    10-14               General considerations (paras. 43-48) .............    10-12               The present case (paras. 49-61) ...................    12-14                  i)    Letter of 5 October 1981                     (paras. 52-53) ............................     12                  ii)   Letter of 18 December 1981                     (paras. 54-56) ............................    12-13                  iii) Letters of 20 February and 23 February 1982                     (paras. 57-59) ............................     13                  iv)   Letters of 4 June and 22 June 1982                     (paras. 60-61) ............................    13-14               Conclusion (para. 62) .............................     14           C.   Article 10 of the Convention             (para. 63) ........................................     14     - ii -   9511/81                                                                         page             D.   Article 13 of the Convention (paras. 64-84) .......    15-19               General considerations (paras. 64-66) .............    15-16               The present case (paras. 67-83) ...................    16-19               Conclusion (para. 84) .............................     19           E.   Recapitulation (para. 85) .........................    19-20     Dissenting opinion of Mr.   Danelius joined by MM. Jörundsson, Vandenberghe, Sir Basil Hall and Mr.   Martinez .................     21           APPENDIX I       History of the proceedings                 before the Commission .........................     22   APPENDIX II      Partial Decision on the admissibility                 of the application ............................    23-39   APPENDIX III     Final Decision on the admissibility                 of the application ............................    40-50   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 Michael McCallum, a British citizen, born in 1950 and resident in Helensburgh.   3.       The applicant is represented before the Commission by McCann Fordyce, solicitors practising in Helensburgh.   The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Michael Wood of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.   4.       The case concerns the stopping by the prison authorities of various letters written by the applicant when he was in prison and the disciplinary award imposed on the applicant which included a 28 day restriction of his right to correspond.   The case also concerns the applicant's complaints that he has no effective remedy in respect of these matters or in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning conditions of detention in the Inverness Segregation Unit.   Issues accordingly arise under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.     B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 31 August 1981 and registered on 16 September 1981.   6.       On 4 October 1983, the Commission decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, and that they should be invited to submit before 16 December 1983 their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints under Articles 3 and 13.   7.       The Government sent their written observations on 24 January 1984 after an extension in the time-limit and the applicant's observations in reply were received on 24 April 1984 also after an extension in the time-limit.   8.       On 16 March 1984, the applicant was granted legal aid under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure.   9.       The Commission considered the application again on 9 July 1984 and decided to adjourn its consideration of the applicant's complaints under Articles 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention relating to interference with his correspondence and remedies therefor, as well as the complaint under Article 13 insofar as it related to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.   It declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.   10.      The Commission also requested supplementary observations on the admissibility and merits of the adjourned complaints.   The observations of the respondent Government were submitted on 3 December 1984 and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 2 April 1985.   11.      On 10 July 1985, the Commission declared the application admissible as regards the applicant's complaints under Articles 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention and decided to adjourn the further examination of the application pending its decision in the cases of Boyle and Rice.   12.      On 14 July 1986, the Commission decided to adjourn further consideration of the merits pending the outcome of Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights.   13.      Following the decision of the Court in Boyle and Rice on 27 April 1988 (Eur.   Court H.R., Boyle and Rice judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131), the parties were invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application.   The parties made no further observations.   The Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. b of the Convention, also 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' reactions, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.     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:                   MM.   J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A. WEITZEL                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES   15.      The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 4 May 1989 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.   The Commission's partial decision on the admissibility of the application is attached as Appendix II, the Commission's final decision on the admissibility of the application as Appendix III.   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.      On 11 March 1980, the applicant was convicted of assault and robbery and sentenced to six years' imprisonment to run from 26 November 1979.   20.      During two periods, from 22 November 1980 to 27 January 1981 and from 30 June 1981 to 15 October 1981, the applicant was detained in solitary confinement in the Inverness Segregation Unit, a special "control unit" introduced in 1965-1966 for the accommodation of troublesome prisoners.   21.      During 1981-1982, the applicant's correspondence was subject to the following restrictions:      -     Two letters dated 24 June 1981 to the applicant's solicitor         and to a Member of Parliament were stopped.   The letter to         the solicitor was stopped in accordance with Standing Order         Ic 1(3)d which prohibits complaints concerning prison         treatment.   The letter to the Member of Parliament was stopped         in accordance with Standing Order Ic 3(6)a on the ground that         it contained complaints about prison treatment which had not         been channelled through the appropriate procedure, namely a         petition to the Secretary of State or other official means.      -     A letter of 5 October 1981 to the editor of the Daily Record         was stopped.   It was considered by the prison authorities         not to conform to Standing Orders but there is no record of         the grounds for this view.   In this letter, the applicant         requested that a copy of an article in the newspaper         concerning himself ("Cage Man Euro Court Plea") be sent to         him and also asked to be informed if two previous letters         had been received.      -     A letter dated 18 December 1981 to the Procurator Fiscal was         stopped because it contained allegations of assault on other         prisoners.   The letter was considered objectionable in terms         of Standing Order Ic 1(3)d as containing complaints of         prison treatment.   Those prisoners had not themselves made         complaints through any channel, internal or external.   It was         also considered that to allow letters complaining on behalf of         other prisoners would be contrary to good order and         discipline.   The applicant was allowed to write another letter         containing allegations of assault concerning himself alone.      -     A letter dated 19 January 1982 to Miss Hampson of Dundee         University was stopped on the grounds that she was not a         previous correspondent of the applicant, nor a legal adviser         for purposes of his petition to the Commission.   Under         Standing Order Ic 4(12) correspondence with persons other         than existing friends and relations was at the discretion         of the Governor.      -     Letters dated 20 and 23 February 1982 to the applicant's         representative Mr Godwin were delayed and eventually posted         on 18 March 1982.   It was agreed that the applicant could         correspond with Mr Godwin in relation to his application to         the Commission pursuant to Standing Order Ic 3(10)(g)i, which         entitles prisoners to correspond with their legal advisers and         other persons in relation to the preparation of an application         to the Commission.   This was done on the understanding that Mr         Godwin would abide by the Commission's rules of         confidentiality concerning applications.   Some particulars of         the applicant's complaints had been published in the press and         the Scottish Home and Health Department had sought an         assurance from him that he would abide by the rules of         confidentiality.      -     Copies of letters that had been written by Mr Godwin to         the Secretary of State (22 June 1982) and Mr Allan at the         Prison Service Headquaters (4 June 1982) were stopped from         being issued to the applicant under Standing Order Ic 4(12)b,         which gives the Governor a discretion to forbid letters on the         grounds of security or good order and discipline or in the         interests of the prevention or discouragement of crime.   These         letters suggested that there had been a breakdown of         discipline on the part of the staff at Peterhead prison and         predicted there would be disturbances among prisoners.   The         letter of 22 June 1982 implied that staff might have been         responsible for causing a fire in the applicant's cell.   The         prison Governor considered these letters objectionable on the         grounds of good order and discipline in the prison.   In         particular, it was feared that if they got into the hands of         prisoners they might be encouraged to make the disturbances         predicted in the letters.   22.      On 22 December 1982, a disciplinary award was imposed on the applicant by the Visiting Committee of Barlinnie Prison, which included a 28 day restriction on the applicant's correspondence, pursuant to Rule 74(2) of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 which provides that the intervals at which prisoners are allowed to write and receive letters may be extended as punishment for misconduct.   The applicant complains that during this period he was refused permission to write to the Commission, his Member of Parliament, a solicitor, the Procurator Fiscal, the Scottish Council for Civil Liberties and the Howard League for Penal Reform.   23.      The applicant was released from prison on a date unspecified in 1985.     B.       The relevant domestic law   a)       Prison rules   24.      Rule 74(1)-(5) of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 regulates the right of prisoners to correspond with others and the censorship or stoppage of such correspondence.   The discretion of prison governors to stop letters under this Rule was, at the material time, exercised in accordance with administrative instructions of the Secretary of State for Scotland contained in Standing Orders Ic 1 to Ic 4 of the Prisons (Scotland) Standing Orders.   Since 1 August 1983 the Standing Orders have changed to take account of the Commission's Report and the judgment of the Court in the case of Silver and Others.   The new regulations are now found in Section Ma of the Prison (Scotland) Standing Orders.   25.      The Prison (Scotland) Act 1952 and the Prison Rules apply to the Inverness Unit as they apply to other prisons.   Most provisions of the Standing Orders also apply.   Administrative instructions particular to the unit are, however, set out in the Inverness Prison Unit Regulations.   b)       Channels of complaint   26.      The following channels of complaint exist:   -        The principal internal channel of complaint is to petition the Secretary of State for Scotland in accordance with Rule 50(4) of the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952.   -        A visiting committee set up by virtue of Section 7 of the 1952 Act is empowered to hear and investigate any application or complaint made by prisoners.   -        Section 15 of the 1952 Act provides that a Sheriff or Justice of the Peace may visit any prison and may examine the condition of the prison and of the prisoners.   This means of complaint is seldom, if ever, used.   -        The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is empowered to investigate complaints of maladministration made by prisoners.   -        A prisoner detained in the Inverness Unit would have the additional possibility of complaining to the Inverness Unit Review Board.   The purpose of the Board is to review the case of each prisoner detained in the Unit and, if appropriate, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the return of a prisoner to a normal prison location.   -        It would also have been open to a prisoner to direct a complaint to the Standing Committee on Difficult Prisoners whose purpose is to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland on the allocation and management of difficult prisoners.   -        The exercise by public authorities of statutory powers and duties are reviewable in the courts.   The operation of a statutory power would be open to challenge on the grounds that it had been exercised arbitrarily, unreasonably or for an improper purpose. Insofar as the 1952 Act and the Rules made under it confer rights on prisoners, such rights would be enforceable by an action for Declarator. III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES     A.       The applicant   27.      The applicant complains that the restrictions on his correspondence and the stopping of his letters constitute an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his correspondence contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.   28.      While the relevant rules have since been changed, the applicant submits that the new Standing Orders contain restrictions and limitations on prisoners' rights which are not necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder and constitute a clear breach of the provisions of the Convention.   He considers that the new rules confer excessive discretion on the Governor in stopping communications.   For example, while Order 2.1(d) states that "no prisoner may be deprived by disciplinary award or otherwise of writing a statutory letter", the Governor of the Visiting Committee could, as a disciplinary punishment, impose restrictions on a prisoner's entitlement to additional letters.   Such a restriction constitutes an excessive use of power by a prison governor and is incompatible with the Convention.   Similarly, if a prisoner has no funds of his own available to meet the cost of posting, the governor under Order 2.1(g) may refuse to allow the letter to be sent at public expense.   He provides further examples of Standing Orders which grant wide discretion on the governor to impose restrictions on a prisoner's correspondence.   He considers these restrictions to constitute breaches of the Convention.   29.      Accordingly, he submits that the changes that have occurred in the Standing Orders since the bringing of his application do not satisfy the complaints which are at the basis of his application.   30.      He further contends that he did not have an effective remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention in respect of his correspondence complaints or his complaints under Article 3 concerning the conditions of his detention in the Inverness Segregation Unit.     B.       The Government           Article 8 of the Convention                   Letters dated 24 June 1981 to the applicant's                 solicitor and a Member of Parliament                 following the case of Silver and Others   31.      The Government concede that the stopping of the two letters was contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.                   Letter dated 5 October 1981 to the Daily Record   32.      Since the Government do not have the necessary information regarding the grounds for stopping this letter, they are unable to say whether the stopping was justifiable under Article 8.                   Letter dated 18 December 1981 to the Procurator Fiscal   33.      It is submitted that the stopping of the letter was justified under Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.   It would be contrary to the maintenance of prison order if a prisoner were allowed to raise with the prosecuting authorities allegations of assault by prison staff on behalf of other prisoners who have not raised any such complaint themselves.                   Letter dated 19 January 1982 to Miss Hampson   34.      It is conceded that the stopping of this letter was contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.                   Letters dated 20 and 23 February 1982 to Mr Godwin   35.      The Government had agreed that the applicant could correspond with Mr.   Godwin, in relation to his application to the Commission, without censorship, on the understanding that Mr.   Godwin would abide by the Commission's rule of confidentiality.   Some particulars of the applicant's complaints had appeared in the press and the Government were unwilling to allow further letters under the arrangement without an assurance from Mr.   Godwin that he would abide by the Commission's rules in the future.   Following Mr.   Godwin's reply of 5 March 1982 to their letter of 24 February 1982 seeking such an assurance, the letters which had been stopped were then posted.                   Stopping of copies of letters dated 4 and 22 June 1982   36.      The stopping of these letters is justified under Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.   It would be contrary to the maintenance of prison order to permit prisoners to obtain letters which alleged a breakdown of discipline among prison staff and which, in the present case, suggested that there might have been criminal conduct by prison staff, and predicted consequent disorder by prisoners.   37.      Finally, as regards the disciplinary award of 22 December 1982 the Government concede that this award was contrary to Article 8, having regard to the case of Silver and Others.           Article 13 of the Convention   38.      As regards the complaint under Article 13 relating to correspondence, it is submitted that where there has been no violation of Article 8, there has been no violation of Article 13 either.   39.      As regards the applicant's complaint under Article 13 in relation to Article 3, the aggregate of domestic remedies as summarised above is adequate to comply with Article 13.   The case of Raymond v.   Honde (1982) 2 WLR 465 shows that the courts may adjudicate on the lawfulness of a prisoner's treatment in the light of the statutory powers and duties of the prison authorities.   40.      The applicant might also complain of the decision to transfer him to the Inverness Unit to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.   He would examine whether or not such a decision involved maladministration.   However, Article 13 does not require a remedy in respect of the decision to transfer.   What matters is the existence of remedies in respect of treatment while a prisoner is in the Unit. 41.      If a prisoner were detained in the Unit for an excessive period of time, the case could be reviewed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration or the prisoner could petition the Secretary of State.   Since the Secretary of State has recommended specified periods for detention in the Unit, such a complaint would be likely to be upheld.   IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION     A.       Points at issue   42.      The principal issues to be determined are:           Article 8 (Art. 8)        a) Whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention as a result of:           -   the stopping of the two letters of 24 June 1981 from the applicant to the applicant's lawyer and a Member of Parliament;           -   the stopping of the applicant's letter of 5 October 1981 to the Daily Record;           -   the stopping of the applicant's letter of 18 December 1981 to the Procurator Fiscal ;           -   the stopping of the applicant's letter of 19 January 1982 to Miss Hampson of Dundee University ;           -   the delaying of the letters of 20 February and 23 February 1982 to the applicant's representative ;           -   the stopping of the issue to the applicant of copies of letters written by the applicant's representative to the Secretary of State and Prison Service Headquarters (dated 4 June 1982 and 22 June 1982) ;           -   the 28 day restriction on the applicant's correspondence imposed by a disciplinary award on 22 December 1982.           Article 10 (Art. 10)        b) Whether the above matters also constituted a violation of Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention.           Article 13   (Art. 13)        c) Whether the applicant had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention as regards his complaints concerning his correspondence.        d) Whether the applicant had an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention as regards his complaints under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention.     B.       Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention           General considerations   43.      The relevant part of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention reads as follows:           "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for ... his         correspondence.           2.   There shall be no interference by a public authority         with the exercise of this right except such as is in         accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic         society in the interests of national security, public safety         or the economic well-being of the country, for the         prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of         health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and         freedoms of others."   44.      In the Commission's opinion in the case of Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom (Comm.   Report 11.10.80) it held as follows:           "... a prisoner has the same right as a person at liberty         to respect for his correspondence, the ordinary and reasonable         requirements of imprisonment being of relevance in assessing         the justification for any interference with that right under         the exceptions permitted by Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) ...           The Commission considers, therefore, that the right under         Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) to respect for correspondence envisages         a free flow of such communications, subject only to the         limitations prescribed by Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).           The Commission concludes that the censorship of prisoners'         correspondence by prison authorities, in principle,         constitutes an interference with the right of prisoners to         respect for their correspondence under Article 8 para. 1."         (Art. 8-1) (paras. 269-271)           "Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention requires that any         interference with a person's right to respect for         correspondence be firstly in accordance with the law ...           The Commission considers that <this> phrase ... is not         merely a reference to the State's domestic law, but also         a reference to the rule of law, or the principle of legal         certainty, which is common to democratic societies and         the heritage of member States of the Council of Europe."         (paras. 277 and 281)   45.      The Commission noted that this entailed two requirements - that the law must be adequately accessible and foreseeable (Eur.   Court H.R., Sunday Times judgment of 26 April 1979, Series A No. 30, p. 29 para. 49).   Whilst the Prison Rules 1964, as amended, satisfied the requirement of accessibility, the same could not be said of the management guidelines unless they could be reasonably deduced from the Rules.   46.      As regards the second element of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2), "necessary in a democratic society", the Commission found that restrictions imposed on a prisoner's right to respect for correspondence must be necessary and proportionate to meet a legitimate governmental aim. Thus a balance must be struck, for example, between the need to rehabilitate a prisoner and the interests of public order and security (paras. 286-290).   47.      As regards the substantive issues, the principal justification that could be put forward for the censorship of prisoners' correspondence was the need to prevent disorder.   However, the Commission noted that many of the management guidelines concerning the contents and addressee of prisoners' letters were overbroad restrictions, which were not "necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of disorder", within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention (paras. 294-426).   48.      This opinion of the Commission was not substantially contested by the respondent Government before the European Court of Human Rights, which confirmed most of the Commission's conclusions (Eur. Court H.R., Silver and Others judgment of 25.3.83, Series A No. 61, pp. 32-41, paras. 83-105).           The present case   49.      As regards the facts of the present case, the Commission first notes that the Government do not contest that, in light of the Silver case, the stopping of the two letters of 24 June 1981 and the letter of 19 January 1982 and the imposition of the 28 day restriction on correspondence were not "necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) and accordingly admit that these actions were contrary to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   In view of these circumstances, the Commission finds that these restrictions constituted violations of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.   50.      Since August 1983 there has been a substantial reform of the relevant management guidelines.   The applicant complains that these changes however still impose excessive restrictions.   These new regulations were not in force at the material time and it is not the Commission's task to examine the compatibility with the Convention of the new regulations in the present case.   51.      The Commission will however deal in turn with each of the applicant's remaining correspondence complaints in light of the principles and case-law outlined above.           i) Letter of 5 October 1981 to the Daily Record   52.      The Government have confirmed that this letter was stopped on the grounds that it did not conform to Standing Orders but have no record of the grounds for this view.   The Commission recalls that in this letter the applicant requested the newspaper to send a copy of an article concerning the applicant and to acknowledge receipt of previous correspondence.   53.      The Commission is unable to discern any relevant or sufficient reason which might have justified the stopping of the applicant's letter as being "necessary in a democratic society" for any of the purposes provided for in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.           ii) Letter of 18 December 1981 to the Procurator Fiscal   54.      The Government have submitted that this letter to the Procurator Fiscal was stopped since it contained allegations of assault on other prisoners.   It is stated that the letter was objectionable in terms of the Standing Orders as containing complaints of prison treatment and that it was considered that to allow letters complaining on behalf of other prisoners would be contrary to good order and discipline.   55.      In the Silver case (loc. cit., paras. 385-389), the Commission considered that an imprecise and overbroad restriction was not justified in terms of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention. Similarly the Commission found that a prohibition which takes no account of the addressee or the likely effect of the material in question constituted an overbroad and unjustifiable restriction (paras. 357-358).   56.      In the present case, the Commission notes that the letter was addressed to the Procurator Fiscal and is unable to discern how such a letter could have adverse effects on prison order and discipline.   The Commission finds therefore no sufficient reason which might have justified the stopping of the letter as being "necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of disorder" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.           iii) Letters of 20 February and 23 February 1982   57.      The Commission recalls that these two letters from the applicant to his representative Mr.   Godwin were delayed and not posted until 18 March 1982.   58.      The Commission refers to its previous case-law to the effect that the supervision of prisoners' correspondence, while an interference with their right to respect for correspondence, is in general justified under the provisions of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).   Such supervision may reasonably extend, in difficult cases, to the referral by a prison governor of a prisoner's correspondence to the Secretary of State for further consideration (e.g.   Silver case, loc. cit. paras. 423-426).   In the Silver case for example, the Commission found that a three weeks delay in the posting of a letter did not constitute a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention for this reason.   59.      The Commission recalls that in the present case the letters were delayed while the Scottish Home and Health Department contacted Mr.   Godwin seeking an assurance that he would comply, as he had agreed, with rules of confidentiality attaching to applications to the Commission.   The Commission finds that the delay in the posting of the letters interfered with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence but also finds, in the circumstances of the present case, that the interference was justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention as necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.           iv) Copies of letters of 4 June and 22 June 1982             written by the applicant's representative   60.      The Commission recalls that these letters, copies of letters from Mr.   Godwin to the Secretary of State and Mr.   R. Allan of the Scottish Prison Service, were stopped from being issued to the applicant on the grounds of security and good order and the prevention and discouragement of crime.   61.      The Commission notes that the letters had been sent by Mr.   Godwin to the Secretary of State and Mr.   R. Allan making representations on the applicant's behalf and that accordingly the applicant had a legitimate interest in receiving copies of these letters.   While the Commission notes that the letters referred to alleged provocative acts by prison officers and the state of tension in the prison, these matters, which included the incident of an outbreak of fire in the applicant's cell, must already have been known to the applicant and many other of the prisoners.   The Commission therefore cannot discern how these letters, if issued to the applicant, could have adverse effects on prison order and discipline or be construed as encouraging disturbances.   The Commission consequently finds no sufficient reason justifying the stopping of these letters as being "necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of disorder or crime" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.           Conclusion   62.      The Commission concludes unanimously :   a)       that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the stopping of the two letters of 24 June 1981 (para. 49) ;   b)       that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the stopping of the letter of 5 October 1981 (paras. 52-53) ;   c)       that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the stopping of the letter of 18 December 1981 (paras. 54-56) ;   d)       that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the stopping of the letter of 19 January 1982 (para. 49) ;   e)       that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the stopping of the issue of the copies of the letters dated 4 and 22 June 1982 to the applicant (paras. 60-61) ;   f)       that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the disciplinary award of a 28 day restriction on the applicant's correspondence (para. 49) ;   g)       that there has been no violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the delaying of the letters of 20 and 23 February 1982 (paras. 57-59).     C.       Article 10 (Art. 10) of the Convention   63.      The applicant has also complained that the stopping and delayin