Right to privacy and family life
01 January 1991
Right to privacy and family life
bacdoc September=1992
[Several cases]
Ballantyne v UK (I 2.4.91) No 14462/88
European Commission on Human Rights
Facts
The applicant was a prisoner and for long periods was detained
in prisons several hundred miles from where his close
relatives lived.
Decision
The prison authorities argued that the applicant had been
detained in more secure prisons as a result of his history of
violence and further offences. These prisons were some
distance from his relatives, but arrangements had been made
for temporary transfer to facilitate visits. The commission
decided that the restrictions came within the limitations in
article 8 and that the application was inadmissible.
Campbell v UK (25.3.92) Series A, Vol 233
European Court of Human Rights
Facts
The applicant is serving a life sentence. From the beginning
of his sentence, he had been advised by his solicitor about
contemplated and pending legal proceedings and other matters.
His correspondence with his solicitor and the commission had
been regularly opened and screened by the authorities.
Decision
The court stated that some measure of control over prisoners'
correspondence was not necessarily incompatible with article
8. It did not see any useful purpose in distinguishing
different categories of communication between prisoners and
their lawyers. Where the authorities have reasonable cause to
believe that correspondence includes an illicit enclosure, the
letter should be opened, with suitable guarantees preventing
it from being read, eg, opening it in the presence of the
prisoner. Letters should be read only in exceptional
circumstances, when the authorities have reasonable cause to
believe that the contents endanger prison security, the safety
of others or are otherwise of a criminal nature.
Comment
The court has now clearly set out the right of prisoners to
correspond with their lawyers without any interference,
regardless of whether the correspondence deals with pending or
contemplated litigation or any other issue. This case also
reinforces the right to private interviews in PTA cases. The
court rejected the argument that the professional competence
and integrity of solicitors could not always be relied on. It
held that the possibility of abuse was outweighed by the need
to respect the confidentiality attached to the lawyer-client
relationship.
In Pfeifer and Plankl v Austria (25.2.91) Series A, Vol
227, the court ruled that the deletion of the following words
from a letter between prisoners was disproportionate and
therefore a violation of article 8:
`I wonder whether there is anybody left in this monkey
house who is still normal ... In life they are nobodies,
here they think that they are gods. Some of the officers
are guests like us. They are always spying on the women,
these monkeys are proper peeping Toms! I hate it.'
M & R Anderson v Sweden (25.2.92) Series A, Vol 226
European Court of Human Rights
Facts
R was taken into care partly on the basis that his mother, M,
was treating him in a manner which was harmful to his
development. All access between them was limited and was made
subject to conditions.
Decision
The court held that:
`the aggregate of the restrictions imposed by the social
welfare authorities on meetings and communications by
correspondence and telephone between the applicants was
disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued and,
therefore, not "necessary in a democratic society".'
Comment
This was a case decided primarily on its facts. The ability to
take advantage of the European Court of Human Rights in such
cases is limited by the time it takes to obtain judgment. This
case took 5 years, in addition to the domestic procedures.
Beldjoudi v France (26.3.92) (1992) Times 10 April
European Court of Human Rights
Facts
The applicant was of Algeri