CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 17 mai 1990

.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. 12395/86   by Peter CHESTER   against   the UNITED KINGDOM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 17 May 1990)                           TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Pages   I.       INTRODUCTION         (paras. 1 - 14) ......................................   1-3           A.   The application             (paras. 2 - 4) ...................................    1           B.   The proceedings             (paras. 5 - 9) ...................................   1-2           C.   The present Report             (paras. 10 - 14) .................................   2-3     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS         (paras. 15 - 35) .....................................   4-8           A.   The particular circumstances of the case             (paras. 15 - 32) .................................   4-7               a)   The simultaneous ventilation rule                 (paras. 15 - 17) .............................   4-5               b)   Letter quotas                 (paras. 18 - 20) .............................    5               c)   The simultaneous ventilation rule: lawyers                 (para. 21) ...................................    5               d)   Christmas card quotas                 (paras. 22 - 24) .............................    6               e)   Correspondance with other prisoners                 (paras. 25 - 29) .............................   6-7               f)   Further examples of letter quota restrictions                 (paras. 30 - 32) .............................    7           B.   The relevant domestic law and practice             (paras. 33 - 35) .................................   7-8   III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 36 - 67) .....................................   9-15           A.   Points at issue             (para. 36) .......................................    9           B.   As regards Article 8 of the Convention             (paras. 37 - 61) .................................   9-14               a)   Interference under Article 8 para. 1                 of the Convention                 (paras. 39 - 40) .............................    10               b)   Justification under Article 8 para. 2                 of the Convention                 (paras. 41 - 61) ............................. 10-14                   aa)   "in accordance with the law"                      (paras. 42 - 44) ........................ 10-11                   bb)   "necessary in a democratic society"                      (paras. 45 - 61) ........................ 11-14                        (i)     The simultaneous ventilation rule                             (paras. 47 - 51) .................    12                               Conclusions                             (paras. 50 - 51) .................    12                        (ii)    Letter and card quotas                             (paras. 52 - 58) ................. 12-13                               Conclusions                             (paras. 56 - 58) .................    13                        (iii)   Correspondence with other prisoners                             (paras. 59 - 61) .................    14                               Conclusion                             (para. 61) .......................    14           C.   Recapitulation             (paras. 62 - 67) .................................   14-15   Partly dissenting opinion of Mr.   Trechsel ....................    16   Partly dissenting opinion of Mr.   Rozakis, joined by Mr.   Vandenberghe ...................................    17     APPENDIX I   : History of the proceedings               before the Commission ..........................   18-19   APPENDIX II : Decision of the Commission               on the admissibility of the application ........   20-30   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 application is brought by Mr.   Peter Chester, a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1954.   At the time of lodging the application he was detained at H. M. Prison Frankland, Durham.   He is at present detained at H. M. Prison Greetwell Road, Lincoln.   He is serving a sentence of life imprisonment.   The applicant was unrepresented before the Commission, apart from a brief period in 1988 when he was represented by Messrs.   Catterall, Pell & Moxon, solicitors, Wakefield, and similarly in 1989 by Messrs.   Andrew & Co., solicitors, Lincoln.   3.       The application is directed against the United Kingdom.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Michael Wood, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   4.       The application concerns the censorship of the applicant's correspondence in prison, including limitations on the numbers of letters and Christmas cards which the applicant was allowed to send. It raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 10 March 1986 and registered on 19 September 1986.   6.       On 13 May 1987, after making a preliminary examination of the case, the Rapporteur requested the Government, pursuant to Rule 40 para. 2 (a) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to provide information regarding the censorship practices and incidents described by the applicant.   Information was provided by the Government on 3 July 1987, to which the applicant replied on 3 August 1987.   7.       On 3 May 1988 the Commission examined the admissibility of the application.   It decided to give notice of the case to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, and to invite the parties to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   The Government submitted their observations on 18 July 1988.   The applicant was invited to submit his reply to those observations before 16 September 1988.   This time limit was suspended pending the applicant's legal aid application to the Commission and the instruction of solicitors.   The solicitors appointed by the applicant, Messrs.   Catterall, Pell & Moxon, informed the Commission on 5 January 1989 that the applicant had withdrawn his instructions.   The applicant was then invited to submit his observations before 17 March 1989.   They were submitted on 20 February 1989.   8.       On 10 July 1989 the Commission declared the application partially admissible in respect of the applicant's complaints concerning the simultaneous ventilation rule, mail quotas and correspondence with a fellow prisoner.   The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   On 22 August 1989 the parties were sent the text of the Commission's decision on admissibility and they were invited to submit any written conclusions on the merits of the case which they had.   The Government were also requested to provide further information concerning the applicant's correspondence with a fellow prisoner.   The Government submitted their reply to this invitation on 6 November 1989.   The applicant commented on the Government's further observations on 18 November 1989.   9.       After declaring the case partially admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   10.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      J. CAMPINOS                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES   11.      The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 17 May 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.      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.   13.      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 forms Appendix II.   14.      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           a)   The simultaneous ventilation rule   15.      On 6 March 1986, whilst the applicant was detained in H. M. Prison Parkhurst, he was involved in certain disturbances and placed in the punishment block of the prison.   Following these disturbances he was allowed to write to his Member of Parliament, but a letter dated 9 March 1986 to Mr.   D. Speakman was stopped because it contained complaints which had not been put to the prison Governor or the Secretary of State.   He was given an opportunity to rewrite the letter omitting the offending passages.   16.      The Government informed the Commission that, for the protection of prison staff, prisoners were generally required to air any complaints about prison treatment or staff misconduct through internal channels before or at the same time as they complained externally.   (This restriction, known as the simultaneous ventilation rule, did not apply to correspondence with solicitors at the material time and has since been abolished altogether.)   The prescribed procedures were set out in Standing Order 5B, which is published and available to inmates.   Standing Order 5B 34(j) prohibited correspondence containing certain types of complaint:           "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         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.   The prescribed procedures are:           i.    with respect to an adjudication, by petition to the         Secretary of State;           ii.   with respect to an allegation of misconduct or         impropriety by a member of staff, in writing to the         Governor, or by petition to the Secretary of State;           iii. in relation to any other matter, by petition to the         Secretary of State or by application to the Board of         Visitors or by application to a visiting officer of the         Secretary of State.           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."   17.      Records at Parkhurst Prison showed that the applicant's letter of 6 March to Mr.   Speakman was stopped because it contained allegations of incompetence on the part of senior management at that prison.   It was posted two days later on 11 March 1986 as soon as the applicant petitioned the Secretary of State in accordance with Standing Order 5B 34j(ii).   The applicant claimed that his letter contained factual statements and not allegations of staff misconduct.           b)   Letter quotas   18.      The applicant was then transferred to H.M. Prison Frankland in April 1986.   There restrictions were placed on the number of letters he could write, whereas he had corresponded without such restrictions at Parkhurst.   He complained to the Home Office about the disparity in prison censorship practices.   The Secretary of State refused to take any action regarding this complaint (petition reply dated 22 July 1986).   19.      A prisoner's entitlement to letters is set out in Standing Order 5B 7 and is applicable to all prisons in England and Wales:           "(1)   All convicted prisoners are entitled under Prison Rule         34 to one statutory letter a week on which postage is paid         at public expense....           (3)    .... inmates may send, in addition to the statutory         letter at public expense, at least one letter a week on         which postage is paid from earnings.   The Governor should         allow additional letters paid from earnings so far as is         practicable, taking into account the need to examine and         read correspondence and the staff resources available.         Inmates are generally allowed to receive as many letters         as they are allowed to send."   20.      The number of letters allowed varies according to the establishment, and is at the discretion of the prison Governor.   Over 12 million incoming and outgoing letters are handled by the prison authorities of England and Wales annually.   At Frankland Prison a prisoner's allowance is normally three per week, over and above the weekly statutory letter at public expense, although more may be permitted in exceptional cases.   During the period covered by this application, namely from 7 March 1986 until 1 October 1987, the applicant wrote over 600 letters which were sent out, an average of just over 8 per week.   Some weeks he sent out over 30 letters.           c)   The simultaneous ventilation rule: lawyers   21.      On 22 July 1986 a letter of complaint to the applicant's solicitor was stopped for failing to put the complaint before the Governor, even though the applicant claimed to have done so.   The applicant petitioned the Home Office about the stopping of the letter. The Secretary of State rejected the complaint on 15 December 1986 on the grounds that the letter had been correctly stopped under Rule 37 (A) of the Prison Rules 1964.   On 3 July 1987 the Government informed the Commission that this letter had in fact been stopped in error and an apology had now been made to the applicant (cf. para. 16 above).           d)   Christmas card quotas   22.      The applicant alleged that Circular Instruction 63/66 unjustifiably limits prisoners' purchase and use of cards, e.g. only 24 cards may be sent or handed out at Christmas.   The use of circular instructions denies prisoners necessary information as to censorship practices.   23.      The Government responded to this allegation that the number of Christmas cards prisoners may send is set out in Standing Order 5B 13, which provides that:           "At Christmas a convicted inmate will be allowed to send an         additional letter to be paid for from his prison earnings;         and the Governor has discretion to allow more....         In addition up to 12 cards with stamps may be bought from         the prison canteen out of prison earnings or private cash."   24.      In recognition of the special needs of long-term prisoners as many as 24 cards may be sent by inmates in certain prisons, including Frankland.   The restriction on the number of cards which may be sent is necessary to avoid placing too great a burden on the censor's offices.   Inmates are only allowed to send cards bought in the prison canteen - which may include charity cards - to avoid the necessity of searching each one.   The applicant was allowed to send Christmas cards in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines.           e)   Correspondence with other prisoners   25.      The applicant alleged that correspondence with a fellow inmate at Frankland Prison had been stopped.   The censorship was upheld by the Secretary of State (petition reply 17 December 1986).   26.      The Government acknowledged that, whilst the applicant was removed from association with other inmates for reasons of good order and discipline, pursuant to Rule 43 of the Prison Rules 1964, as amended, correspondence with a fellow inmate was prohibited.   27.      Standing Order 5B 26 deals with correspondence between prisoners:           "Correspondence with another convicted inmate requires the         approval of both Governors, except where the inmates are         close relatives as described in Standing Order 5B 28 below         or where they were co-defendants at their trial and the         correspondence relates to their conviction or sentence.         Subject to the provisions of Orders 5B 24-30 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 and discipline, that the inmates         should be separated from each other, or prevented from         communicating with each other."   28.      In exercise of the discretion conferred by this guideline, the Governor of Frankland Prison took the view that correspondence between the applicant and the other prisoner was not conducive to the good order and discipline of the establishment whilst the former was removed from association.   For this reason, after an exchange of letters between the two prisoners about a forthcoming adjudication, the Governor decided that correspondence between them should be stopped until the applicant returned to normal location.   29.      The applicant stated that at the relevant time he had refused to leave the segregation unit after serving a disciplinary punishment and, therefore, the "good order and discipline" rule was applied to him to justify his continued presence there.   However he claimed that there were no reasons of good order and discipline to stop his correspondence with the other prisoner as their correspondence was on purely personal matters.           f)   Further examples of letter quota restrictions   30.      The applicant was then transferred to H.M. Prison Long Lartin. There certain of his letters were held up:   The first was dated 12 March 1987 and was addressed to the Clerk of Public Petitions, House of Commons.   (Public petitions may be put orally or in writing by a Member of Parliament before the House of Commons, whereupon the competent Government minister may enter a reply to the problem raised.)   The second and third letters which were delayed were dated 16 March 1987 and addressed respectively to Mrs.   T. Bailey and the Reverend B. Greenaway.   31.      According to the Government these letters were held up pursuant to Standing Order 5B 7 (para. 19 above).   At Long Lartin Prison this Standing Order concerning letter quotas is enforced by issuing prisoners with standard prison letter forms.   Where a letter is not written on such official paper, it must be submitted for posting with a postal authority slip so that the number of letters sent can be recorded.   These slips are available from the prison censor's office.   The three letters were stopped because they were not accompanied by such slips, which the applicant subsequently obtained. The letters were then sent in their original form.   32.      The applicant was then transferred to H.M. Prison Wakefield. From there a letter (on or about 8 September 1987) to Mrs.   S. Rutkowski and a letter dated 1 October 1987 to the Rt.   Hon.   Tony Benn, MP, were stopped because the applicant had exceeded his letter allowance, contrary to Standing Order 5B 7.   He had already written four outgoing letters during each of the weeks in question.   B.       The relevant domestic law and practice   33.      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.   34.      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)).   Rule 34 (2) entitles a convicted prisoner "to send and receive a letter on his reception to prison and thereafter once a week".   Rule 34 (3) enables the prison Governor to "allow a prisoner an additional letter ... where necessary for his welfare or that of his family". Rule 34 (7) enables the Secretary of State to "allow additional letters ... in relation to any prisoner or class of prisoners".   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".   This is attenuated in respect of legal letters by Rule 37 A which provides that correspondence between a solicitor and a prisoner who is a party to legal proceedings should not usually be read or stopped unless the prison Governor has reason to suppose that any such correspondence contains material unrelated to the proceedings.   35.      With a view to securing uniformity of practice throughout prison establishments, the Secretary of State also issues to prison Governors management guidelines in the form of Standing Orders or Circular Instructions.   The Standing Orders on censorship of prisoners' correspondence are public (since December 1981) and prisoners are provided with information about them.   At the material time, the Standing Orders further delimited prisoners' rights to correspond, the following examples being relevant to the present case:           -   the obligation to comply with the simultaneous            ventilation rule (Standing Order 5B 34(j),            para. 16 above);           -   letter and card quotas (Standing Order 5B 7 and 13,            paras. 19 and 23 above);           -   a closer control of letters between prisoners            (Standing Order 5B 26, para. 27 above).   III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.       Points at issue   36.      The points at issue in the present application are whether, in several instances, there has been an unjustified interference by prison authorities with the applicant's right to respect for correspondence ensured by Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, in particular as regards the following aspects of the case:        -   the stopping of a letter dated 9 March 1986 to Mr.   D.         Speakman, the applicant not having observed the         simultaneous ventilation rule;        -   the stopping of a letter dated 22 July 1986 to the         applicant's solicitor, the simultaneous ventilation         rule again not having been observed;        -   the imposition of letter and Christmas card quota         restrictions, the former restriction including the delay         in posting a letter dated 12 March 1987 to the Clerk of         Public Petitions, House of Commons, and the stopping of         a letter dated 1 October 1987 to the Rt. Hon. Tony Benn, MP;        -   the interruption of the applicant's correspondence with a         fellow prisoner for a period when the applicant was in the         segregation unit at H.M. Prison Frankland.     B.       As regards Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention   37.      For the present case the relevant part of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention is 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 .... for the prevention of disorder or crime ...."   38.      The applicant contended that the interference with his correspondence was neither in accordance with the law nor 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.   The Government conceded an interference with the applicant's right to respect for correspondence in certain instances, such as the stopping or delaying of certain letters in excess of the applicant's weekly letter allowance, but contended that the interference was in accordance with the law and necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime. Insofar as errors were committed by the prison administration, as with the mistaken censorship of the applicant's letter of 22 July 1986 to his solicitor (para. 21 above), the Government have offered an apology.           a)   Interference under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention   39.      The Commission refers to its constant case-law that 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) of the Convention.   Any stopping, reading, screening or delay of prisoners' correspondence by prison authorities, in principle, constitutes an interference with prisoners' right to respect for correspondence (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Comm.   Report 11.10.80, Eur. Court H.R., Series B no. 51, paras 269-271 and 423-426).   40.      The Commission found in its decision on admissibility of 10 July 1989 in the present case (Annex II p. 15 below) that there had been an interference by the prison authorities with the applicant's right to respect for correspondence as follows:   -        insofar as his letters dated 9 March 1986 to Mr.   Speakman (para. 15 above) and dated 22 July 1986 to his solicitor (para. 21 above) were respectively delayed and stopped for failing to observe the simultaneous ventilation rule;   -        insofar as three of the applicant's letters were delayed and two stopped for exceeding the weekly letter quota (delayed letters dated 12 March 1987 to the Clerk of Public Petitions, 16 March 1987 to Mrs.   T. Bailey, 16 March 1987 to the Rev.   B. Greenaway, and stopped letters dated 8 September 1987 to Mrs.   S. Rutkowski and 1 October 1987 to the Rt.   Hon.   Tony Benn, MP - cf. paras. 30-32 above);   -        generally insofar as a weekly letter quota (para. 18 above) and a Christmas card quota (para. 22 above) were imposed on the applicant; and   -        insofar as there was a prohibition on the applicant's correspondence with a fellow inmate during the applicant's placement in the segregation unit at H.M. Prison Frankland (para. 25 above).           b)   Justification under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention   41.      The Commission must now proceed to examine firstly whether this interference, established under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention, was in accordance with the law, and, secondly, whether it was necessary for one or more of the reasons specified in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2).               aa)   "in accordance with the law"   42.      The Commission has had occasion in several cases concerning British prisoners to analyse whether the Prison Rules, supplemented by Standing Orders and applied to censor correspondence, are in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.   The Commission has found that, in principle, where censorship is specifically provided for in the Prison Rules 1964, as amended, or may be said to flow clearly from the Secretary of State's powers under Rule 33 (1) of those Rules "with a view to securing good order and discipline", such restrictions are in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) aforementioned Silver and Others Report paras. 281-285, 336-338, 376-377).   Furthermore, whilst Standing Order 5 on the censorship of correspondence does not have the force of law, it has been made public and is available to prisoners.   In the Commission's opinion, the censorship practices contained in that Order and grounded in the legal authority of Rules 33, 34 or 37 of the Prison Rules, in principle, satisfy the requirements of the rule of law (accessibility and foreseeability), embodied in the phrase "in accordance with the law" in Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2)( cf. Grace v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 15.12.88, para. 86).   43.      The Commission notes that the restrictions imposed on the applicant's correspondence concerned the simultaneous ventilation rule (Standing Order 5B 34(j) - para. 16 above), letter and card quotas (Standing Orders 5B 7 and 13 - paras. 19 and 23 above), and controls on correspondence between prisoners (Standing Order 5B 26 - para. 27 above).   The Commission has previously accepted that the simultaneous ventilation rule and the control of correspondence between prisoners, since reforms in December 1981, may be said to be in accordance with the law pursuant to Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention, these restrictions being anchored in the Secretary of State's powers under Rules 33 (1) and 34 (8) of the Prison Rules 1964 (the aforementioned Grace Report paras. 93 and 95).   Accordingly, the interference with the applicant's correspondence based on such limitations may also be said to be in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.   44.      As regards letter and card quotas, the Commission observes that the Prison Rules are more restrictive than Standing Orders 5B 7 and 13, only one letter a week being envisaged by Rule 34 (2).   Rules 34 (3) and (7) afford a discretion to prison Governors and the Secretary of State to allow more.   The fact that the Secretary of State has exercised his discretion through the Standing Order to authorise at least one other weekly letter and from 12 to 24 Christmas cards (postage to be paid by the prisoner) may be said to be based on his powers under Rule 34 (7) of the Prison Rules.   Accordingly the Commission finds that the interference with the applicant's correspondence for exceeding correspondence quotas was in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.               bb)   "necessary in a democratic society"   45.      The Commission now turns to the question whether the interference with the applicant's right to respect for correspondence was necessary under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.   The principal justification that can be put forward for the censorship of prisoners' correspondence is the prevention of disorder or crime, with a balance being struck between the legitimate interests of public order and security and that of the rehabilitation of prisoners (aforementioned Silver and Others Report, paras. 289-290).   Moreover, the Court has confirmed that, in assessing whether an interference with a prisoner's right to respect for correspondence was necessary under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention, regard must be paid to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment, for some measure of control over prisoners' correspondence will be called for and is not of itself incompatible with the Convention (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of Silver and Others of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, para. 98).   46.      The Commission will examine the necessity of the various interferences with correspondence of which the applicant has complained in the light of these considerations.               (i)   The simultaneous ventilation rule   47.      Two of the applicant's letters were stopped because they contained complaints which had not been put at the same time to the prison Governor or the Secretary of State, contrary to Standing Order 5B 34(j).   The first letter dated 9 March 1986 was addressed to Mr.   D. Speakman (para. 15 above), the second letter dated 22 July 1986 was addressed to the applicant's solicitor.   Nearly a year later the Government apologised to the applicant for an error in having stopped the second letter (para. 21 above).   48.      The Commission refers to the case of Grace v. the United Kingdom (Comm.   Report 15.12.88, paras. 93-94) in which it found that the simultaneous ventilation rule may in certain circumstances be necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder in respect of prisoners' general correspondence, with the exception of prisoners' correspondence with lawyers:           "Whilst recognising the importance of a system of internal         inquiry into prisoners' complaints about their treatment         or conditions in prison, the Commission confirms its         opinion in the case of Silver and Others that prisoners'         correspondence with lawyers is of a privileged nature         and, in principle, should be unhindered."   49.      The Commission finds no factual elements in the present case to detract from these considerations.   Accordingly it is of the opinion that the stopping of the letter to Mr.   Speakman was justifiable as "necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of disorder", within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention, whereas the stopping of the applicant's letter to his solicitor was not necessary.   As regards the latter, the Commission welcomes the Government's apology to the applicant, but this cannot preclude the Commission expressing an opinion as to whether or not there has been a violation of the Convention in respect of the censorship of the letter in view of the lateness of the apology which provided no practical remedy for the applicant.           Conclusions   50.      The Commission concludes, by 18 votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's stopped letter dated 9 March 1986 to Mr. D. Speakman.   51.      The Commission concludes, by a unanimous vote, that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's stopped letter dated 22 July 1986 to his solicitor.               (ii)   Letter and card quotas   52.      Letter and Christmas card quotas, embodied in Standing Orders 5B 7 and 13, restricted the amount of correspondence the applicant could issue.   As a result of the letter quota three of the applicant's letters were delayed in March 1987 to ensure the applicant's compliance with the administrative procedures controlling the number of letters sent (paras. 30 and 31 above).   Thereafter two of the applicant's letters were stopped in September/October 1987 for exceeding his letter allowance as he had already sent out four letters during each of the weeks in question (para. 32 above).   53.      The Commission accepts that some limitations on the number of letters sent by prisoners may be necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime if some meaningful control of possible escape plans an