Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Case: Silver and Others v. United Kingdom (25 March 1983) ECHR
Parties: Applicants: Reuben Silver, Clifford Noe, Judith Colne, James Tuttle, Gary Cooper,
Michael McMahon, Desmond Carne
Government: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“U.K.”)
Facts: The Applicants were all prison inmates in the U.K. during different times (early to mid
1970s), and each had correspondence that was controlled (reviewed, detained and in
some cases, stopped) by prison authorities on different grounds, alleging violations of
the Prison Rules concerning correspondence. Prisoners received, by means of cell
cards, information about certain aspects of the control of correspondence.
In total, 62 letters written by the Applicants were stopped. The U.K. informed the
Court that the total number of letters sent and received by prisoners in England and
Wales in a year was of the order of 10 millon.
Control and responsibility over inmates in England and Wales is vested by the Prison
Act of 1952 in the Home Secretary. The rules made by the Home Secretary that were
in force during the time of imprisonment of the Applicants were the Prison Rules 1964
(“the Rules”). In addition, the Home Secretary also issues to prison governors
management guides or directives in the form of Standing Orders and Circular
Instructions. However, with effect from 1 December 1981, the directives on prisoners’
correspondence were substantially revised.
Mr. Silver also petitioned the Home Secretary (one of the four channels of complaint
available to prisoners) seeking permission to obtain legal advice but was refused. He
alleges that this violated his right of access to the courts.
Procedural The case originated in 7 applications lodged with the European Commission of Human
Posture: Rights on various dates between 1972 and 1975. The Commission ordered the joinder
of the applications on 11 March 1977.
The Commission then referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights on 18
March 1981.
Issues: Was the withholding of the prisoners’ letters a violation of their right to correspondence
as part of their privacy and family life?
Does the fact that the Rules regarding prisoner correspondence subsequently change
impact the Court’s verdict?
Can the Court address the fact that in the area of prisoner correspondence, practices in
breach of the Covenant continue to exist?
Is there also a violation of the prisoners’ freedom of expression?
Rights: Directly: ECHR Article 8 (Respect for Private and Family Life), Article 6(1) (Fair Trial),
Group D - Case Brief on RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
JUR 5120 – SR / 24 November 2006 Page 2