"Having acted in this case it is important to contrast the judgment with that of the Court of Appeal. That is because the Court of Appeal was far less willing to go behind risk assessments conducted by the Prison Service. The approach of the European Court has potential implications for IRCs and their risk assessments when they decide upon matters such as handcuffing, monitoring mail etc."
 
Hugh Southey, Tooks Chambers

From ECHR website 

"Prison authorities monitoring of Mr Szuluk's medical correspondence had not struck a fair balance with his right to respect for his correspondence. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 8

Chamber Judgment  Szuluk V. The United Kingdom

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Szuluk v. the United Kingdom (application no. 36936/05) concerning the monitoring by prison authorities of medical correspondence between the applicant - a convicted prisoner - and his external specialist doctor.

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life and for correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

1.  Principal facts

The applicant, Edward Szuluk, is a British national who was born in 1955 and is currently in prison in Staffordshire (United Kingdom).

Mr Szuluk was sentenced in November 2001 to 14 years' imprisonment for drugs offences. In April 2001, while on bail pending trial, the applicant suffered a brain haemorrhage for which he had two operations. Following his discharge back to prison, he was required to go to hospital every six months for a specialist check-up.

The applicant complained, unsuccessfully, before the local courts that his correspondence with the neuro-radiology specialist who was supervising his hospital treatment had been monitored by a prison medical officer.

2.  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 October 2005.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Lech Garlicki (Poland), President,
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),
Giovanni Bonello (Malta),
Ljiljana Mijovi? (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),
Ledi Bianku (Albania),
Neboj?a Vu?ini? (Montenegro), judges,
 
and also Fato? Aracž, Deputy Section Registrar.

3.  Summary of the judgment2

Complaint

Relying on Article 8, Mr Szuluk complained that the prison authorities had intercepted and monitored his medical correspondence.

Decision of the Court

Article 8

The Court noted that it was clear and not contested that there had been an "interference by a public authority" with the exercise of the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence. It further observed that it was accepted by the parties that the reading of the applicant's correspondence had been governed by law and that it had been aimed at the prevention of crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Mr Szuluk submitted that the monitoring of his correspondence with his medical specialist inhibited their communication and prejudiced reassurance that he was receiving adequate medical treatment while in prison. Given the severity of his medical condition, the Court found the applicant's concerns to be understandable. Moreover, there had not been any grounds to suggest that Mr Szuluk had ever abused the confidentiality given to his medical correspondence in the past or that he had any intention of doing so in the future. Furthermore, although he had been detained in a high security prison which also held Category A (high risk prisoners), he had himself always been defined as Category B (prisoners for whom the highest security conditions were not considered necessary).

Nor did the Court share the Court of Appeal's view that the applicant's medical specialist, whose bona fides had never been challenged, could be "intimidated or tricked" into transmitting illicit messages or that that risk had been sufficient to justify the interference with the applicant's rights. This was particularly so since the Court of Appeal had further acknowledged that the importance of unimpeded correspondence with secretarial staff of MPs (Members of Parliament), although subject to the same kind of risks, outweighed any risk of abuse.

Indeed, uninhibited correspondence with a medical specialist in the context of a prisoner suffering from a life-threatening condition should be given no less protection than the correspondence between a prisoner and an MP. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had conceded that it could, in some cases, be disproportionate to refuse confidentiality to a prisoner's medical correspondence and changes had since been enacted to the relevant domestic law to that effect. The Court also found that the Government had failed to provide sufficient reasons to explain why the risk of abuse involved in correspondence with named doctors whose exact address, qualifications and bona fides were not in question should be perceived as greater than the risk involved in correspondence with lawyers.

The Court therefore concluded that the monitoring of Mr Szuluk's medical correspondence had not struck a fair balance with his right to respect for his correspondence. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 8.

Article on ECHR website