CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 12 juillet 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. 13590/88   Thomas CAMPBELL   against   the UNITED KINGDOM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION (adopted on 12 July 1990)                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                             page   I.       INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-16)                             1           A.   The application (paras. 2-4)                       1           B.   The proceedings (paras. 5-12)                      1           C.   The present Report (paras. 13-16)                  2   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 17-38)              4           A.   Particular circumstances of the case               4             (paras. 17-28)           B.   Relevant domestic law (paras. 29-38)               6               a.   In general (paras. 29-30)                      6               b.   Correspondence with legal advisers                 (paras. 31-35)                                 6               c.   Correspondence concerning proceedings                 under the European Convention on Human Rights                 (paras. 36-38)                                 8   III.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 39-77)              9           A.   Points at issue (para. 39)                         9           B.   Opening of correspondence with the applicant's             solicitor (paras. 40-62)                           9               a.   Opening of correspondence with the solicitor                 concerning contemplated and pending                 proceedings (paras. 49-56)                    11               b.   Opening of general correspondence with                 the solicitor (paras. 57-62)                  12           C.   Opening of correspondence with the Commission             (paras. 63-74)                                    13               a.   Article 8 of the Convention (paras. 64-72)    13               b.   Article 25 of the Convention (paras. 73-76)   15           D.   Recapitulation (para. 77)                         16   Partially dissenting opinion of Mr.   H.G. Schermers            17   Partially dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall joined by Mrs.   J. Liddy                                       19   APPENDIX I      History of the proceedings                     20   APPENDIX II     Decision on the admissibility                  22                of the application     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 Thomas Campbell, a British citizen born in 1952.   He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Barlinnie prison, Glasgow.   The applicant is represented before the Commission by Mr.   John Carroll, a solicitor practising in Glasgow.   3.      The application is directed against the United Kingdom.   The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Michael Wood of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.   4.      The case relates to the applicant's complaints that his correspondence with his solicitor and the European Commission of Human Rights has been opened by the prison authorities.   The application raises issues under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.      The application was introduced on 14 January 1986 and registered on 5 February 1988.   6.      On 13 July 1988 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government and that they should be invited to present, before 10 November 1988, their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.   7.      The Government sent their written observations on 1 December 1988, after an extension of the time-limit for their submission had been granted by the President of the Commission.   The applicant's representative submitted the applicant's written observations in reply on 7 March 1989.   8.      Further information was submitted by the applicant on 12 May 1989 and by the Government on 23 May 1989.   9.      On 17 March 1989, the Commission decided to grant legal aid to the applicant.   10.      On 7 September 1989 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 3 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to invite the parties to make further oral submissions at a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the applicant's complaints concerning the opening of his correspondence.           At the hearing, which was held on 8 November 1989, the applicant was represented by Mr.   John Carroll.   The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Michael Wood, Mr.   MacKay, QC, Mrs.   MacDonald (Scottish Office) and Mr.   Reeves (Scottish Home and Health Department), Advisers.   11.      On 8 November 1989 the Commission declared the application inadmissible as regards the applicant's complaints concerning refusal of legal aid and his complaint concerning the opening of a letter to a Member of Parliament and admissible the applicant's complaints concerning interference with his correspondence.   The Commission also decided to examine further whether the opening of the applicant's correspondence from the Commission was compatible with Article 25 para. 1 of the Convention.   The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application.   The applicant submitted further observations on 5 February 1990 and the Government on 23 February 1990.   The Commission considered the state of proceedings on 12 May 1990.   12.      After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (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' reactions, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   13.     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.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 M.    C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY   14.      The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 12 July 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   15.      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.   16.      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.          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.       Particular circumstances of the case   17.      The applicant is serving a term of life imprisonment for murder following his conviction on 10 October 1984.   18.      Since his imprisonment the applicant has been advised by his solicitor in respect of:       1.   an action for damages for injuries sustained on 3 November 1985;       2.   a claim against the Secretary of State for damages in respect         of injuries sustained on 25 April 1987;       3.   a claim against the Secretary of State in respect of         infestation of lice while in the hospital wing of Peterhead         Prison in November 1985;       4.   a possible prosecution by the police (arising out of an         incident in Barlinnie Prison on 25 April 1987);       5.   a denial of communication with the solicitor following the         said incident on 25 April 1987;       6.   the Prison Department's denial of the applicant's right to         free and unrestricted correspondence between himself and his         legal advisers on all of the above matters;       7.   an application (Application No. 12323/86) to the European         Commission of Human Rights concerning inter alia his solitary         confinement and access to his solicitor while in custody in         hospital;       8.   the present application.   19.      The applicant states that throughout his detention, from 1985 onwards, his correspondence with his solicitor and the Commission has regularly been interfered with, in being opened and screened by the prison authorities.   20.      On 16 September 1985, the applicant's solicitor wrote to the Governor, HM Prison Peterhead, asking that all correspondence between him and his client should pass without interference.   After the Deputy Governor of Peterhead had discussed the matter with the applicant, he wrote on 23 September 1985 to the applicant's solicitor indicating that outgoing mail from the applicant to his solicitor concerning his petition to the Commission, if properly marked, would not be opened.   21.      In a further letter dated 4 October 1985 the solicitors wrote to the Governor of Peterhead Prison again asking for Standing Order M to be waived regarding all solicitors' correspondence.   On 15 October 1985 the Governor replied that incoming mail from the solicitor concerning an application to the Commission, suitably identified, would be opened in the presence of the prisoner and handed to him unread.   The Governor explained that this arrangement would not apply to solicitors' correspondence about matters other than the application to the Commission.   22.      On 24 October 1985 the applicant's solicitor wrote to the Scottish Home and Health Department again requesting that all the correspondence between him and his client should pass unopened.   23.      On 29 October 1985 the applicant petitioned the Secretary of State complaining about censorship of his mail with his solicitor.   In their reply to this and other petitions on 19 June 1986 the Scottish Home and Health Department advised the applicant that his solicitor had been told on 15 October 1985 that correspondence "in respect of ECHR procedures" should be clearly marked to ensure privacy but that any other correspondence between an inmate and his legal adviser was subject to the normal rules.   24.    On 16 June 1986 the Scottish Home and Health Department wrote to the applicant's solicitor confirming the arrangements for solicitors' correspondence concerning matters before the Commission but reaffirming that other correspondence was still subject to normal rules.   25.      In his petition dated 19 June 1986 the applicant again complained that incoming mail from his solicitor was scrutinised.   He repeated these complaints in his petition dated 27 June 1986.   In these petitions, the applicant also drew the attention of the authorities to the fact that correspondence from the European Commission of Human Rights was being opened.   The reply to these petitions received by the applicant on 15 July 1986 referred the applicant to the existing arrangements.   In his petition of 30 December 1986 he complained that a letter from a firm of solicitors was opened before he received it.   26.      The Scottish Home and Health Department stated in a letter dated 16 June 1987 to the applicant's solicitor that all correspondence would continue to be opened except that concerning a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights.   However, despite this statement correspondence to and from the Commission has been opened.   The applicant refers to letters dated 20 June 1985, 17 July 1985, 9 October 1985, 20 November 1985, 22 April 1986, 22 May 1986, 7 January 1987, 4 June 1987, 18 August 1987, 2 October 1987, 7 October 1987 and 3 November 1987 from the Commission which show the prison censor's mark on the top right hand corner.   The Government accept that five of these letters (17 July 1985, 9 October 1985, 20 November 1985, 22 April 1986 and 18 August 1987) were opened.   It considers that three other letters (20 June 1985, 22 May 1986 and 7 January 1987) may have been opened but that it is not possible to identify the markings.   Of two remaining letters (2 and 7 October 1987) which the applicant alleges were opened the Government state that there are no identificable marks and no opinion is expressed as to whether they have been opened or not.   27.      A letter sent by the applicant to his Member of Parliament dated 25 August 1987 also received the same scrutiny.   28.      The applicant's solicitors applied for legal aid to bring civil proceedings in respect of the interference with the applicant's correspondence.   Legal aid was refused on 7 October 1986 by the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee on the ground that the applicant had no probable cause of action.   The Committee also noted that the applicant was not being denied visits from his legal advisers and that he has not indicated that he was unable to give instructions verbally to his advisers.   The applicant's appeal against this decision was refused on 5 December 1986 by the Legal Aid Central Committee of the Law Society of Scotland.   B.       Relevant domestic law and practice   a.       In general   29.      The system of prisons in Scotland is governed by the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 (c.61), section 35(1) of which provides that:           "the Secretary of State 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."   30.      In exercise of his powers under section 35 the Secretary of State has made the Prison (Scotland) Rules 1952 (S.I. 1952/565) ("the Rules").   To supplement these statutory provisions the Secretary of State issues advice and instructions to the Governors of prisons by way of administrative orders, collectively known as the Prison (Scotland) Standing Orders, and administrative circulars.   b.       Correspondence with legal advisers   31.      Communications between prisoners and their legal advisers and others are governed principally by Rule 74 of the Rules.   Rule 74(4) provides that every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor or by an officer deputed by him for that purpose.   The only exceptions to this general rule are letters of request or complaint to the Secretary of State or the Visiting Committee which may not be opened by the Governor if they are sealed by the prisoner.   32.      In the case of remand prisoners, Rule 124(2) provides that they shall be allowed to write to their legal advisers.   Under Rule 124(3) any confidential written communications prepared by such a prisoner as instructions for his legal adviser may be delivered to the legal adviser without being examined by any officer of the prison unless the Governor has reason to suppose that it contains matters not relating to such instructions.   Under Rule 127 this facility is also available to convicted prisoners who are the subject of further charges. Similar provisions apply under Rule 132(2) to an appellant in connection with his appeal.   33.      These rules are supplemented by Standing Order M, which deals in detail with communications between prisoners and others.   Copies of this Standing Order are available to prisoners and the public. Standing Order Mal(a) sets out the purpose of examination of the correspondence, namely to prevent its use to plan escapes or disturbances or otherwise jeopardise the security of the establishment and to satisfy other reasonable requirements of prison administration. Under Standing Order Mal(d), when correspondence is examined or read this is to be done as quickly as possible.   34.      For the purposes of examination and censorship, Standing Order Ma6 divides correspondence, both incoming and outgoing, into five groups.   Most correspondence with legal advisers falls into category (e), that is, general correspondence.   Under Standing Order Ma7 such correspondence must not contain any of the material specified in that Standing Order:           "7.      General Correspondence                   General correspondence (ie at (e) above) may not                 contain the following:                 (a)      Escape plans, or material which if allowed                         would jeopardise the security of a prison                         establishment.                   (b)      Plans or material which would tend to                         assist or encourage the commission of any                         disciplinary offence or criminal offence                         (including attempts to defeat the ends of                         justice by suggesting the concoction or                         suppression of evidence).                   (c)      Material which could jeopardise national                         security.                   (d)      Descriptions of the making of any weapon,                         explosive, poison or other destructive                         devise.                   (e)      Obscure or coded messages which are not                         readily intelligible or decipherable.                   (f)      Threats of violence or of damage to                         property likely to induce fear in the                         recipient.                   (g)      Blackmail or extortion.                   (h)      Indecent or obscene material.                   (i)      Information which would create a clear threat                         or present danger of violence or physical harm                         to any person.                   (j)      Complaints about prison treatment which the                         inmate has not yet raised through the                         prescribed procedures, ...                   ...                   (k)      Material which is intended for publication or                         for use by radio or television (or which, if                         sent, would be likely to be published or                         broadcast)...                   ...                   (l)      Material constituting the conduct of business                         activity...                   ...                   (m)      In the case of an inmate against whom a                         deportation order is in force, material                         constituting or arranging any financial                         transaction, ...                   ...                   (n)      In the case of an inmate in respect of whom a                         receiving order has been made or who is an                         undischarged bankrupt, material constituting                         or arranging any financial transaction...".   35.      Following the friendly settlement in the case of McComb v. the United Kingdom (No. 10621/83, Comm.   Report, 15.5.86, to be published in D.R. 50) the Secretary of State initiated new procedures dealing with correspondence between a prisoner and legal adviser in respect of legal proceedings.   These new procedures came into force in Scotland on 21 March 1988.   They are set out in a new Standing Order Ma8:           "Correspondence with a legal adviser about legal proceedings         to which an inmate is already a party or about a forthcoming         adjudication, may not be read or stopped unless the Governor         has reason to suppose it contains other material.   Such a         letter may be examined for illicit enclosures, but should         only be opened for that purpose in the presence of the         inmate by whom it is sent or to whom it is addressed.           Other correspondence with a legal adviser may be read and may         not contain anything specified in Standing Order Ma7(a)-(i)         and (k) to (n).   Such correspondence may not be stopped on         the grounds that it contains material prohibited by Standing         Order Ma7(j) unless it is clear that the inmate is not         seeking legal advice but is writing for some other purpose."   c.       Correspondence concerning proceedings under the European         Convention on Human Rights   36.      In addition to general provisions relating to correspondence, Standing Order M contains specific provisions relating to correspondence with the European Commission or Court of Human Rights or with a legal adviser in connection with a petition to the Commission or pending proceedings before the Commission or the Court. Under Standing Order Ma10 such correspondence may not contain material prohibited under Standing Order Ma7(a) to (c) or (e).   37.      Further general provisions relating to the Convention are to be found in Standing Order Mf.   In particular, Standing Order Mf7 expressly provides that correspondence between an inmate and his legal adviser about a petition to the Commission or proceedings resulting therefrom should not be read unless the Governor has reason to suppose that the correspondence contains other matters.   38.      The Government state that in practice, as regards correspondence between prisoners and the Commission, outgoing letters if sealed will normally go unopened.   Incoming letters from the Commission are opened; the contents are examined to confirm that they are what they purport to be but they are not read; they are thereafter issued promptly to the prisoner.   III.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.       Points at issue   39.      The principal issues to be determined are   -        whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention as a result of the opening of the applicant's correspondence with his solicitor concerning contemplated and pending proceedings;   -        whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention as a result of the opening of general correspondence with his solicitor;   -        whether there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention as a result of the opening of the applicant's correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights;   -        whether the opening of the applicant's correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights has hindered the applicant in the effective exercise of the right of individual petition contrary to Article 25 para. 1 (Art. 25-1) of the Convention.   B.       Opening of correspondence from the applicant's solicitor   40.      The relevant part of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention provides:           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.   41.      In its opinion in the case of SILVER and Others v. the United Kingdom (No. 5947/72 etc., Comm.   Rep. 11.10.80) the Commission stated as follows (paras. 269 - 271):           "... 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)."   42.      As regards Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2), the Commission recalled in that case that the interference had to be in accordance with the law, which entailed three requirements - that the interference in question must have some basis in domestic law and 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. 30, paras. 47-49).   In respect of the condition "necessary in a democratic society" the Commission recalled that restrictions imposed on a prisoner's right to respect for correspondence had to be necessary and proportionate to meet a legitimate governmental aim.   Thus a balance had to be struck between the need to rehabilitate a prisoner and the interest of public order and security (Silver and Others Rep., loc. cit., paras. 286-290).   43.      The 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 March 1983, Series A, No. 61, pp. 32 - 41, paras. 83 - 109).   The Court also applied in its judgment the general principles underlying the phrase "necessary in a democratic society", including inter alia, the principle that to be compatible with the Convention the interference must correspond to a "pressing social need" and be "proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued" (loc.cit., p. 37-38, para. 97).   44.      The case of SILVER concerned almost exclusively complaints of the stopping of letters.   As regards the opening of letters, without stopping, the case-law of the Commission and Court establishes that the supervision of prisoners' correspondence, while an interference with the right to respect for correspondence, is in general justified under the provisions of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) for the prevention of disorder and crime (Silver and Others Rep., loc. cit., paras. 423 - 426).   In addition, the delay in the posting of a letter while the authorities contacted the applicant's representative was found in the case of McCALLUM v. the United Kingdom (No. 9511/81, Comm.   Rep. 4.5.89) to be an interference justified under Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) as being for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.   45.      The Commission has also considered the problem of the screening of correspondence from a solicitor to an applicant concerning criminal proceedings against the applicant.   The Commission declared the case admissible under Article 6 (Art. 6) and 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention (McCOMB v. the United Kingdom, No. 10621/83, Dec. 11.3.85 to be published in D.R. 50).   The case   was settled on the basis set out above (para. 35).   46.      In the present case, the applicant has complained of the opening and screening by the prison authorities of his correspondence with his solicitor.   It appears that from the beginning of his sentence in 1984 to the present time the applicant has been advised by his solicitor in relation to a number of matters including contemplated and pending legal proceedings and other matters.   47.      The Commission notes that the applicant and his solicitor made several complaints to the prison authorities concerning the practice of opening the applicant's letters with his solicitor.   The prison authorities however maintained that the correspondence remained subject to the rules in operation, which permitted the opening of such letters.   In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant, a prisoner serving a life sentence, may claim to be a victim of an interference with his right to respect for his correspondence protected by Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention without specifying which letters in particular were opened by the prison authorities.   48.      The Commission recalls that following the friendly settlement in the case of McCOMB v. the United Kingdom (loc. cit.) a new standing order Ma8 came into force on 21 March 1988, changing the practice in respect of correspondence concerning pending proceedings. The applicant's complaints in the present case relate only to the time before the change.   a.       Opening of correspondence with the solicitor concerning         contemplated and pending proceedings   49.      The Commission finds that the opening of the applicant's correspondence with his solicitor concerning contemplated and pending proceedings constituted an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence within the meaning of Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.   50.      The Commission must therefore determine whether this inter- ference was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society for one or more of the purposes set out in para. 2 of Article 8 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.   51.      The Commission finds that the interference was based on the Standing Orders issued by the Secretary of State in pursuance of his statutory authority under Section 35 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952.   These Orders are published and available to prisoners and the general public.   The Commission also notes that it is not disputed by the parties that the measure complained of was in conformity with Scottish law.   In these circumstances, the Commission finds that it was "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.   52.      The Government submitted to the Commission that the interference in question pursued the aim of "the prevention of disorder and crime".   The applicant has not alleged that the restriction in issue was designed or applied for another purpose. The Commission is satisfied that the measures pursued the aim of "the prevention of disorder and crime".   53.      As regards the necessity of the interference, the Commission and the Court have in their case-law emphasised the importance of protecting the confidentiality between a lawyer and his prisoner client in the context of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention and the principle of effective access to court.   54.      The Commission stated as follows in its Report in the Campbell and Fell case:           "It is a generally acknowledged principle in the Contracting         States that conversations between a lawyer and his client         concerning contemplated or pending litigation are protected by         privilege, enabling the client to make a full disclosure of         his affairs to his lawyer without fear of prejudicing any         cause of action he may have.   In the Commission's view, where         access to court is permitted only under conditions in which         the potential litigant is denied the benefit of privilege         normally afforded under domestic law, this amounts in         principle to an interference with the right of access to court         protected by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)" (Campbell and Fell         v. the United Kingdom, Comm.   Report 12.5.82, para. 158,         Eur. Court H.R., Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984,         Series A No. 80, p. 71 and p. 49, paras 111-113).   55.      The Commission takes the view that these considerations are of equal significance in the context of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. While the Commission does not exclude the opening of correspondence concerning contemplated and pending proceedings where there exists a reasonable suspicion that the privileged channel of communication is being abused, the Commission notes that no allegations to this effect have been made in the present case.   Furthermore, the solicitor enjoys a special professional status (see para. 61).   In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the opening of this category of correspondence was not necessary in a democratic society in the present case for the prevention of disorder or crime within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.           Conclusion   56.      The Commission concludes, by 11 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the opening of the applicant's correspondence with his solicitor concerning contemplated and pending proceedings.   b.       Opening of general correspondence with the solicitor   57.      The Commission finds that the opening of the applicant's general correspondence with his solicitor constitutes an interference with his right to respect for his correspondence.   58.      The Commission also finds, as above (see paras. 51 - 52), that this practice was in accordance with the law and pursued the aim of the prevention of disorder and crime.   59.      As regards the necessity of the interference, the Government have submitted that the opening of categories of solicitors' correspondence with a prisoner other than those concerning pending proceedings is necessary since there is always a risk that prisoners, under cover of a letter from or to solicitors, would pass and receive unauthorised material, which could pose a threat to good order and discipline in the prison and facilitate attempts at escape, drug dealing or other criminal activities.   They point out the abuses which have already been found in respect of the McCOMB procedures - witness statements being used to identify and intimidate witnesses and in sex offence cases being circulated within prison as stimulat