REED C. ROYAUME-UNI

APPLICATION/REOUETE NÂ° 7630/7 6 John Michael REED v/the UNITED KINGDO M John Michael REED c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 6 December 1979 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 6 dÃ©cembre 1979 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 3 of the Convention : a) Allegations of ill-treatment by prison officers following a prison riot (complaint declared admissiblel ; bl Examination of the detention conditions of solitary confinement for a period of twelve weeks. Manifestly ill-founded. ArYicfe 6, peragreph 1, of the Convention : Following an incident in prison, prisoner prevented from consulting a lawyer with a view to bringing a court action, as long as (more than two years) the administrative and criminal enquiries ordered by the competent authorities were nor completed (complaint declared admissible) .
Article 8 of the Convention : Stoppage by prison-authorities of letters addressed by a prisoner to his member of Parliament and the various other pe rs ons concerning his situation in prison (complaint declared admissiblel : Exhaustion of domestic remedies : .Article26ofhCnv a) In the event of allegations of ill-treatment in prison, the .fact that an applicant has not brought a civil action for damages cannot be held against him if he has been prevented for more than two years, through no fauft of his own, from taking such action . It is therefore not conclusive that this impediment was removed when the Commission decided on the admissibility of the application . b) A prisoner in a British prison, who complains about his solitary confinement, has complied with the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies if he has complained to the Home Office and to the Board of Visitors in accordance with the relevant rules . - 113 -
Article 3 de la Convention : a) AllÃ©gations de mauvais traitements par des gardiens de prison Ã la suite d'une mutinerie (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
b) Examen des conditions d'une dÃ©tention en rÃ©gime d'isolement durant douze semaines. DÃ©faut manifeste de fondement . Artic% 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : A la suite d'un incident en prison, dÃ©tenu empÃ©chÃ© de consulter son avocat en vue d'intenter une action au civil, aussi longtemps (plus de deux ans) que les enquÃªtes administrative et pÃ©nale ordonnÃ©es par les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes n'Ã©taient pas terminÃ©es. (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
Article 8 de la Convention : Interception par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires de lettres Ã©crites par un dÃ©tenu Ã son dÃ©putÃ© et Ã diverses autres personnes concernant sa situation en pnson (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Article 26 de la Convention : Epuisement des voies de recours internes : a) S Ã¢gissant d'allÃ©gations de mauvais traitement en prison, on ne saurait opposer au requÃ©rant le fait qu'il n Ã¢ pas saisi les tribunaux civils d'une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts, alors qu'il a Ã©tÃ© empÃ©chÃ© sans sa faute pendant plus de deux ans d'introduire une telle action . tl n'est dÃ©s lors pas dÃ©cisif que l'empÃ©chement ait disparu au moment oÃ¹ la Commission statue sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte.
b) Un dÃ©tenu dans une prison anglaise, qui se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© en rÃ©gime d'isolement, satisfait Ã la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes s'il s'est plaint au MinistÃ¨re de l'intÃ©rieur et Ã la Commission des visiteurs des prisons conformÃ©ment au rÃ¨glement pertinent.
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 143)
THEfACTS
1 . The applicant is an English citizen, born in 1939 and at the time of introducing his application he was detained at Hull prison where he was serving a term of life imprisonment for murder . He is represented before the Commission by MM . Hamer 4 Co ., Solicitors at Hull . The present application concerns alleged assaults by prison officers, conditions of detention and interference with correspondence . The facts of the case are only in some respects in dispute between the parties . As they appear from the written and oral submissions of the applicant and of the respondent Government they may be summarised as follows : - 114 -
Contact with solicitor and Member of Parliament relating to the bringing of a libel action 2 . The applicant has stated that he was placed on report for offending against prison discipline by offering a prison officer payment for his security keys on 14 January 1976 . At the adjudication on 15 January 1976 the applicant pleaded not guilty and claimed that the offer had been made as a joke . The Governor found him guilty and awarded a caution . 3 . On 20 January 1976 the applicant asked the Governor to be allowed to petition the Home Secretary for permission to seek legal advice with a view to taking a libel action against the above-mentioned prison officer . However, the Governor allegedly refused the applicant permission to petition the Home Office on the ground that he should first make a written statement to him setting out his allegations . The applicant refused to write such a statement since there was in his view no rule requiring him to do so . 4 On the same day the applicant wrote to his solicitor complaining about the decision taken by the Governor . The letter was stopped because the applicant had not been given permission to write to his solicitor asking for his advice . 5 . The applicant says that he insisted upon not making any written statement of the allegations which he wanted to make against the prison officer involved and the Governor subsequently allowed the applicant to petition the Home Office without first having seen the allegations in writing . 6 . The applicant petitioned the Home Secretary on 23 January 1976 . However, on 29 January 1976, the applicant told the Governor that he wanted to withdraw his petition to the Home Secreta ry since the Assistant Governor had told him the day before that he could be charged with making false allegations against the prison officer . 7 . On 17 February 1976 the applicant complained to the Board of Visitors . He asked them for permission to contact his solicitor, but this request was allegedly refused . 8 . On the same day the applicant also wrote to his Member of Parliament, Mr L ., complaining about the refusal of the prison authorities to allow him to seek advice from his sollicitor . This letter was stopped by the Assistant Governor on the ground that the applicant had not given statement to the Governor as to the details of his allegations against the prison officer . In the beginning of March 1976 the applicant wrote a second letter to his MP and this letter was stopped for the same reasons as the first letter . 9 . On 19 February 1976 the applicant was authorised to consult his solicitor for legal advice in the matter of preparation of a petition to the European Commission of Human Rights . He was still not allowed to take up any other matter . - 115 -
10 . In a letter of 4 March 1976 to the applicant's solicitor, the : Prison Governor confirmed that whilst the applicant had permission to consult him regarding the preparation of a petition to the Commission, he did, not have permission to consult him regarding a possible legal action in the .country . In his reply of 8 March 1976 to the Governor, the solicitor disagreed with this contention, since in connection with the preparation of .the petition to the Commission, it was his duty also to advise the applicant regarding legal action in England . The solicitor consequently argued that by refusing the applicant the right to seek such advice the Government weredenying the applicant his right under Article 6 .1 of the Convention as explained - in the Golder case In a letter of 12 March 1976 the Governorexplained the policy of the Home Office to allow inmates facilities to seek legal advice on civil matters . He also stated that he appreciated the ipoints made concerning petitions to the Commission but that "it may well be inappropriate 'for Mr Reed to petition the European Commission-at thisstage but until such time as he allows his complaint to be investigated intemally he will notâ¢ be given facilities to seek legal advice regarding possible leyal action in this country ." 11 . On 17 March 1976, following the advice .of ;his solicitor, the .applicant submitted his written allegations to the Governor . On 24 March 1976 the Governor told the applicant that he had investigated his complaints and found them groundless . He also said that the applicant would have to complain to the Board of Visitors as well 7and that he would still â¢ not be allowed to contact his solicitor . However, twodays later the applicant was informed that he no longer had to complain to the Board of Visitors . He was also allowed to consult his solicitor for legal .advice in the civil matter of alleged libel by a prison officer in relation to tthe adjudication on 15 January 1976 . The applicant subsequently lodged an application tor legal aid whic h .12 was refused on 23 April 1976 by the LocalCommittee of the Law Society . 13 . On 7 May 1976 the applicant wroteâ¢to!his, MP, Mr L ., asking him to make a full inquiry into his case . By letter :of :5 July 1976 to Mr L . the Secretary of State explained the reason why'.the applicant's letters had-been stopped and he was satisfied that the applicant had been "fairly treated under the regulations in respect of the variousrmatters in this case" . 14 . The submissions of the respondent Government regarding the .incident on 14 January 1976 do not differ in substancefrom those of the applicant . The Government deny, however, that on 20 January 1976 the Governor had refused the applicant permission to petition the .'Secretary of State for the purpose of seeking legal advice in order to .take-a libel action againsta prison officer . The applicant was informed by the Governor that the proper course was to submit the complaint to him in writing . In their submission the applicant chose not to submit the complainttto ;the Governor as ;he didâ¢no t - 116 -
wish to run the risk of being accused of making false and malicious allegations . 15 . The letter written by the applicant to his solicitors on the same day lie 20 January) was stopped since it was clear from its wording that the situation was that the applicant was seeking legal advice regarding a complaint which required prior internal ventilation . 16 . In his petition to the Secretary of State of 23 January 1976 the applicant requested permission to seek legal advice with a view to taking a libel action against a prison officer . In accordance with the Circular Instruction 45/1975 the Governor brought to the applicant's attention the statement of warning to which prisoners are alerted where the complaints relate to improper treatment or involve an allegation against an officer . The Government submit that the applicant thereafter accused the Governor of intimidating him and stated that he wished to withdraw the petition . 17 . During the meeting on 17 February 1976 with the Hull Board of Visitors, the Governor had described the procedure required by Circular Instruction 45/1975 before the applicant could be granted access to legal advice about the alleged libel . The Chairman of the Board advised the applicant to follow this procedure . 18 . As to the letter of 18 February 1976 to Mr L ., MP, it raised, according to the Government, the same complaint about prison treatment and was theretore stopped . 19 . The respondent Government further submitted that on 18 February 1976 the applicant petitioned the Secretary ot State asking for permission to seek legal advice in order to take civil action in respect of the stopped letters of 20 January and 18 February 1976 . On 9 April 1976 the Secretary of State replied that the applicant might be afforded reasonable facilities for the said purpose . 20 . On 17 March 1976, whilst the above petition was still under consideration, the applicant submitted to the Governor a statement containing details of the alleged libel committed by the prison officer . The Government submit that the Governor thereafter granted the applicant the facilities he sought to consult a solicitor about the alleged libel .
II . The alleged assauhs at Hull P rison in September 1976' " 21 . This part of the application has its origin in the riot which took place in Hull prison from 31 August to 3 September 1976 . ' See also odn V of the facis concerning ihe appliCanrs attempts i .a . to bring a civil action for assault against orlson officer s
" These compiaints were first raised with the Commission on 20 October 1976.
- 117 -
22 . The applicanr has stated that he took no active part in the riot . He was on the roof of the prison while the riot was taking place, but in his submission the reason for that was that having remained in his cell for some time he was afraid that the prison was to be set on fire . He now contends that, on 3 September 1976, prison officer Mr M . searched him and his possessions . He was thereafter told to go down a passage which connected the B Wing with the main prison . The applicant says that the passage was lined with officers of whom many shouted abusively at him . One officer stepped out in front of him saying "We're going to kill you, just like you killed that taxi driver" . The applicant submits that he was then requested to hand over all his personal belongings to a prison officer in front of a visiting Magistrate . He was subsequently taken to cell No . 102 on the top floor of the building where he was locked up . There was no furniture in the cell, not even a bed . He was not given any blanket or mattress since "there wasn't any left" . He says that he was told to sleep on the floor . The only food he got on that day consisted of two sandwiches with cheese and corned beef in the afternoon and a small beaker of soop in the evening . During the night the prison officers continually went around kicking all doors and hitting them with sticks, thus ensuring that the inmates would not get any sleep . The applicant submits that he also had to urinate out of the window since the officers would not give him a chamber pot . 23 . On 4 September 1976 the applicant was told to "slop out" . He went to the washroom, passing forty officers, but had to stop half-way since prison officer B . was blocking his way . The applicant says that Mr B walked into him backwards and that, when he tried to avoid the officer, the latter followed after and bumped into him again . The applicant continued to the toilet but was grabbed from behind by the prison officers of whom one was nick-named "Kung-Fu" . He was thrown into the arms of all the other officers who immediately began to punch and kick him, while he had to crawl back to his cell on all fours . Someone had also hit him on the face so that his nose was bleeding . The applicant was allegedly assaulted again half an hour later when he was about to get his breakfast . An officer gave him a handful of cornflakes with his bare hands and threw them into his bowl, although most of the cornflakes landed on the floor . Another officer, Mr B ., was serving the jam . According to the applicant, he took a spoonful thereof and proceeded to smear it over him . When the applicant tried to avoid this treatment he was "shoved back" by other officers . Mr B . then hit the applicant in his face with the spoon and he was attacked by "all the otheF officers" and kicked to the floor . Prison officer S . further straddled the applicant's back as he tried to crawl back to his cell . He tried to resist the officer but each time he collapsed the other officers kicked him . The applicant says that he lost consciousness and that the next recollection that he has of this incident i s
- 118 -
that he woke up on the floor of his cell . Other inmates were allegedly subjected to the same treatment . After breakfast the applicant was once again told to "slop out" and not even half-way to the toilet he was punched and kicked to the ground . The last assault took place, according to the applicant, at about 10 o'clock on the same day when the applicant was moved out of his cell . He was told by an officer that he had "five seconds to reach the bottom of the stairs" . He submits that he had to run a gauntlet of over a hundred prison officers from his cell down four flights of stairs . When about half-way down a prison officer called U . started to ckick him . The applicant tried to run around the officer but somebody prevented him from doing so and Mr U . began to kick him . He got up and continued to run . He says that he was kicked and punched all the way and that, when he came down, " a large crowd of officers" set on him again . He was thereafter grabbed by Mr R ., senior officer, and handcuffed . He was made to stand with his legs apa rt and his hands on the wall . Mr R . punched his ribs a couple of times and said to the applicant :"Reed, while you are on your way down south, think about the taxi driver, you slut" . Mr S . also allegedly kicked the applicant when he was on the floor and said "Tell the European Court of Human Rights about this as well" . 24 . The applicant was thereupon taken to the prison at Winchester . He was seen by a doctor there whom he told he had been assaulted at Hull prison, that he had a few bruises and that his body "ached a bit" . He says that in the course of the same week another doctor ordered that his ribs should be strapped up . This was also done . 25 . On 14 December 1976 the applicant was brought before the Hull Board of Visitors sitting at Winchester to face five charges under the Prison Rules arising from the part he played in the disturbances at Hull . He was found guilty and was awarded punishment totalling 140 days loss of privileges, forfeiture of earnings and exclusion from association labour . The applicant, together with other prisoners, applied to the Divisional Court for an Order of Certiorari quashing the decision of the Prison Board of Visitors . In December 1977 the applications were refused by the Court because, since the Board of Visitors "sitting as a disciplinary body was part of the disciplinary machinery of the prison, they were not subject to the control of the High Court by way of Certiorari" . On appeal, however, this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal and the case was referred back to the Divisional Court for consideration . When dealing with the case a second time the Divisional Court decided that the hearing before the Board of Visitors on 14 December 1976 was unfair and it quashed all the findings concerning the applicant's involvement in the riot . - 119 -
26 . The applicant further submits that when his personal property arrived from Hull Prison, most of it was missing and his radio and record player were broken . His possessions were in good condition when he handed them over to an officer at Hull in front of a member of the Board of Visitors . On 4 October 1976 he therefore applied to the Governor at Winchester prison for permission to see the police for the purpose of making a complaint concerning the theft of his property . He was told, however, that he would have to petition before he could report a criminal matter . But, as he had already one petition pending, he could not lodge a second petition . On 2 February 1977 his solicitors submitted a claim for damaged property to the Home Office but no offer of compensation was made by them . 27 . The respondent Government state that the riot that took place at Hull prison between 31 August and 3 September 1976 was one of the most serious prison riots which has ever Ã´ccurred in England and Wales . Fires were started, slates were torn off the roofs, serious damage was done to the fabric of the prison buildings, cell doors were broken down and furniture and fittings were burnt and smashed . In consequence of the riot a large part of the prison was rendered uninhabitable . The B Wing was the only undamaged wing in the prison, and prisoners were therefore temporarily located in that building . The Government also point out in this respect that Hull is a longterm training prison designed to accommodate long-term prisoners convicted of committing the most serious offences . 28 . It is submitted by the Government that, on 2 September 1976, a surrender was negotiated with the prisoners . When a relative peace had been restored to the prison, certain of the prison officers conspired together to take their revenge on, or punish those, whom they saw to be the ringleaders or participants in the riot . The Government state that they did so in a manner which can only be described as deplorable . They ill-treated a substantial number of inmates by beating, kicking and otherwise assaulting them . In certain cases the assaults were fairly severe, although mercifully, the injuries sustained were comparatively few and slight .
29 . On 28 September 1976 the applicant petitioned the Secretary of State alleging that he had been assaulted by officers at Hull prison on 4 September . Since such allegations of ill-treatment had been received also from other prisoners, it was decided that the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service should be asked to conduct an investigation into the allegations . The investigation was to be distinct and separate from the inquiry the Chief Inspector was already conducting into the causes and circumstances of the riot . The applicant was informed accordingly on 3 December 1976 . 30 . On 5 January 1977 the applicant, while detained . in Winchester prison, wrote to the Hampshire police alleging that he had been ill-treated by prison officers at Hull on 4 September 1976 . The letter was passed on to th e - 120-
Humberside Police Force and its Chief Constable took the view that he had to investigate the matter . Since several other similar allegations had been made by inmates of Hull prison, it was decided that the Humberside Police should take over the entire investigation into the allegations of assault from the Chief Inspector of Prisoners . The Chief Inspector's investigation was therefore terminated and his inquiries were to be confined to the cause and circumstances of the riot itself . 31 . On completion of their lengthy and painstaking inquiries, the police prepared a report which was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions . On the instructions of the Director, criminal proceedings were instituted against twelve prison officers for the conspiracy to assault prisoners at Hull . The former Assistant Governor at Hull was charged with willful neglect in the exercise of his duties by failing to take any steps to prevent, stop or report assaults by prison officers upon prisoners .
The defendants were committed for trial on 31 August 1978 . The trial of the prison officers commenced at York Crown Court on 15 January 1979 and extended over a period of 53 days . The Government submit that one or possibly three of the officers named in the indictment were referred to by the applicant : prison officer B . and officers D . and S . As a result of the trial two senior officers (including officer D .) were found guilty of conspiracy to assault and were sentenced to nine months' imprisonment suspended for two years ; six other officers (including officer S .) were convicted and sentenced to periods of four to six months' imprisonment also suspended for two years . The Government submit that the present applicant was one of the witnesses for the prosecution at the trial .
III . Exclusion from association and conditions in Winchester priso n 32 . The applicant arrived at Winchester prison on 4 September 1976 and remained there until 10 January 1977 . 33 . According to the applicanr the Governor of Winchester prison decided that in the interests of good order and discipline the applicant should not be allowed to associate with other prisoners . Accordingly he was segregated under Rule 43 of the Prison Rules . The applicant says that although there was "a table and a chair for a bed" in the cell it had a "concrete stake cemented into the floor with a rubber mattress for sleeping on" . There was no heating whatsoever and he had to drape himself with a blanket in order to try to keep warm . There were also cockroaches in the cell . The applicant submits that these cockroaches were a few times treated with some kind of powder . This was however ineffective in terminating the manifestation and he had to resort to stuffing the cracks in the cell with paper to try to kee p
- 121 -
the cockroaches out . The applicant says that this was ineffective too and that the absence of a bed, coupled with the presence of the cockroaches made his incarceration much worse . 34 . The applicant submits furthermore that he was locked up 23 hours per day and allowed to take a walk on his own for merely half-an-hour each morning and afternoon . He was not even allowed to have a radio in his cell . 35 . On 28 September 1976 ihe applicant complained to the Deputy Governor about his solitary confinement . 36 . He also states that on 28 September 1976, in the evening, he was moved from the A Wing Segregation Unit to the C Wing Segregation Unit . This was allegedly a temporary measure while the new heating system was installed . The applicant says that in the C Wing he was again locked up in a cell without a proper bed . The new cell only differed from the earlier one in ihat the bed base was wooden instead of concrete . 37 . The applicant allegedly reported sick on 1 October 1976 . He wanted to talk to the prison doctor in confidence which was not possible since the doctor was not "allowed to see prisoners on their own" . The applicant says that he managed to tell the doctor his minor symptoms and that the doctor asked him a couple of questions without prescribing any treatment for him . He further submits that on 3 October 1976 he wrote to his solicitors asking for an urgent meeting because he was concerned about symptoms of his illness and his mental health which in his view was the result of the condition that he was undergoin g The applicant savs furthermore that he was feeling "very depressed" and "was having great difficulty sleeping at night" . He "was on edge all the time and also developed a facial twitching" . On 26 October 1976 the Senior Medical Officer of the prison allegedly asked the applicant if he was well . The applicant told the Officer that he felt all right although he had not felt well for about a month . Since nothing had happened after he had reported sick on 1 October 1976 the applicant considered it pointless to tell the doctor again about the way he felt . On 17 October 1976 the applicant was told by the Deputy Governor of 38 the prison that as from the following day he would be allowed to exercise together with two other category A prisoners . 39 . The applicant further submits that on 28 October 1976 he was moved to yet another cell in the Segregation Unit but that he was still not given a proper bed . On 9 November 1976 the applicant was moved back to what seems to be the A Wing Segregation Unit where he was placed in a "strong celP' without a proper bed .
- 122 -
40 . On 2 November 1976 the applicant complained to the Board of Visitors about his solitary confinement . In the applicant's submission the Board concluded that since the solitary confinement was ordered by the Home Office, it could not be altered by them . The applicant spent approximately three months in solitary confinement at Winchester, ie until some time in December 1976 . 41 . The respondent Government confirm that, upon the applicant's admission to Winchester on 4 September 1976, the Governor decided that he should be removed from association with other prisoners . It is submitted that, in the immediate aftermath of the disturbances at Hull, virtually all the 235 inmates who were relocated to other prison establishments were segregated from the general prison population . This statement did not, however, hold true in regard to what hÃ¢ppened at Winchester prison . Nineteen prisoners were sent there from Hull after the riot . Three of these prisoners, including the applicant, were category A prisoners, namely men serving long-term prison sentences and who in normal circumstances would never had been accommodated at Winchester prison which is designed only to accomodate remand prisoners and convicted prisoners serving comparatively short sentences . In the submission of the Government this prison has neither the staff not the facilities to accommodate or train long-term offenders . Furthermore, at the material time in September 1976, Winchester prison, which is an old prison, was undergoing major repairs and renovation work which further reduced the accommodation available and resulted in an abnormal degree of discomfort for the inmates . 42 The Government submit furthermore that the applicant had a bad prison history . He had been disciplined on five previous occasions and on five further occasions it had been necessary to place him on Rule 43 for a variety of subversive or imputed subversive offences . 43 . In the wholly exceptional circumstances the Governor concluded that it was both necessary and prudent for the preservation of good order within the prison to remove the applicant and the other two Category A prisoners from association with other prisoners . This decision was taken on the basis of Rule 43, paragraph 1, of the Prison Rules 1964' . 44 . It was thus true that from the date of his admission to the prison on 4 September 1976 until 17 October 1976 the applicant was segregated from other prisoners including the two category A inmates from Hull . This did not mean, however, that he was deprived of all human contact . He had regula r ' Rule 43, oaragraoh 1 orovides that "Where it appears desiiable
lor the maintenance of good
order or discioLnC oi in his own interests that a or i soner should not associate with other orisoners, either generallv or for oarticular Uurposes . the Governor may arrange for the orisoner's removal from association aocordingly ."
- 123 -
and frequent contact and communication with prison staff . He was also permitted visits from relatives and friends in the normal way . In addition, the applicant would have had access to the library ; he would have been entitled to smoke, to buy items from the prison canteen and he would have been provided with writing facilities . 45 . From 18 October 1976, the applicant was permitted to associate with the two .other category A prisoners from Hull and as from 27 October 1976 he was further permitted to associate with them while "slopping out" each day . 46 . As regards the conditions in which the applicant was detained in Winchester prison, it was recorded that the applicant had made eleven applications whilst at the said prison but that none of them included a complaint about cockroaches . The Government admit, on the other hand, that the presence of cockroaches had been mentioned to staff from time to time by various people . However, Winchester was an old prison . Regrettably, in the submission of the Government, it was inevitable that cockroaches lodge in the fabric of the building . The problem was dealt with by keeping stocks of pest powder in the prison and to treat the infestation when it appeared . In addition, the local Pest Control Officer regularly attended at the prison to control and prevent outbreaks as far as possible . 47 . As to the lack of heating in the cell in which the applicant was detained until 28 September 1976, the Government accept that there would have been no heating in the cell until the central heating for the whole prison was turned on . The precise date on which this occurred could not now be established but it appeared to have been sometime in October 1976 . It is pointed out moreover that in the summer of 1976, England enjoyed a prolonged and exceptional heatwave which persisted throughout September . The Government furthermore find it notable that at no stage did the applicant apparently complain about the lack of heating in his cell, not did any other inmate complain, even though the temperature in the applicant's cell would have been substantially identical to that in all other cells in the prison . 48 . As regards the cell in which the applicant was first accommodated, the respondent Government state that there was a bed although confirming that it only consisted of a moulded concrete bed platform with a mattress on top . This mattress was made of foam rubber as in all other cells in the prison . Like all other inmates, the applicant was also supplied with blankets and bed linen .
49 . In the submission of the respondent Government, finally, the applicant would not for security and control reasons have been permitted to have a radio in his cell during the time when he was segregated under Rule 43 . - 124-
IV . Treatment in Leeds Priso n 50 . The applicant, who was transported to Leeds prison on 10 January 1977, complains that he was continually harassed by the officers at Leeds prison in that they tried to block the path when he was walking . The same officers allegedly intimidated, provoked and threatened him because of his attempts to pursue an action after the events at Hull prison . Wherever he went his escort also "continually and deliberately" bumped into him . Furthermore, whenever he was sitting on the toilet officers were looking under and over the door, thereby causing him great embarrassment . Officers were also standing outside his door making sarcastic remarks such as "next time we get you in Broadmoor we'll make sure you don't get out" . They also frequently scratched his door imitating the cry of a cat . 51 . The applicant slates that he complained on a number of occasions to the prison authorities about his treatment and that he petitioned the Secretary of State on the same matters on 16 February 1977 . On 7 March 1977 furthermore he unsuccessfully complained to the Board of Visitors concerning, amongst other things, the degrading treatment to which he was subjected in Leeds prison . ' The applicant states furthermore that, on 7 March 1977, he made complaints to Chief Superintendent A . as the latter was interviewing him in private regarding the police investigations into the assaults . It is submitted that the Chief Superintendent had told that the conditions in Leeds prison were worse than those in which one could keep an animal and that the atmosphere there was very hostile both towards the inmates from Hull prison and towards the police who were carrying out their investigations . The ChiÃ©f Superintendent had also said that he had made representations to the Home Office as a result of which, he believed, the applicant was moved to Wakefield prison on 17 March 1977 . 52 The respondent Government submit that in his petition to the Secretary of State dated 16 February 1977 the applicant claimed that he was being intimidated and provoked by prison officers at Leeds . The petition contained several examples of the alleged intimidation but gave no indication of when the alleged incidents took place . According to the respondent Government, the applicant had also failed to name any of the officers involved . In answer to this petition the applicant was told on 29 March 1977 that if he wished to complain about his treatment he should provide all the details which were necessary to enable the matter to be fully investigated . He was also warned that if he made any allegations against staff which were found to be false and malicious he would render himself liable to disciplinary proceedings . In the submission of the Government it was thus open to the applicant, as from 29 March 1977, to pursue his complaints before either the Board of Visitors or the Secretary of State by supplying the additional information .
- 125 -
In addition it is confirmed by the Government that the applicant, between the date he submitted his petition and the time when he received a reply to it, raised the same complaints before the Board of Visitors . In the view of the Government these avenues of complaint are regarded as alternatives and it was open to the Board of Visitors to advise the applicant that they would not investigate his complaint whilst a reply to his petition was still pending . V . Contact with solicitor concerning treatment at Hull prison for the purpose of bringing a civil action for damage s 53 . The applicant's submrssions in this respect may be summarised as follows . In the beginning of September 1976 the applidant was granted permission by the prison Governor to write to his solicitor with a view to obtaining advice for the preparation of his application to the Commission . In a letter of 30 September 1976 to the applicant's solicitor the Secretary of State confirmed this information . 54 . On 24 September 1976 the applicant received two letters from his solicitor dated 21 September and stamped 22 September by the prison censor . He says that no explanations were given for the delay in giving him the letters . Furthermore, a legal aid form enclosed with these letters was not handed over to him . It was first on 30 September 1976 that the Deputy Governor let the applicant sign the form and promised to mail it together with an accompanying letter . In one of the letters from the solicitor it was stated that Mr P ., MP, had asked the solicitor to advise the applicant that he had been authorised by the Home Office to interview any prisoner who had a complaint against the prison authorities following the disturbances at Hull prison . Mr P . was therefore asking the applicant (1) to write to him immediately, indicating the nature of his complaints and requesting a personal interview ; (2) to prepare and send him a full statement of his complaints ; (3) to contact the prison Governor at Wichester and to apply to appear before the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Inquiry into the disturbances at Hull . 55 . The applicant says that on 27 September 1976 he was refused by the Governor permission to follow the instructions given by Mr P . On 28 September 1976 the applicant therefore petitioned the Secretary of State complaining about the above developments . He also asked for permission to instruct his solicitor to start civil proceedings against certain officers at Hull prison and the Home Office for negligence and assault . 56 . On 30 September 1976 the applicant wrote two letters to his solicitor . They were allegedly both stopped, as was a letter of 27 September addressed to him . The reason for stopping the latter was that the applicant had complained that the prison authorities had delayed incoming and outgoing mail between himself and the solicitor .
- 126 -
57 . On 5 October 1976 the applicant then complained to the Board of Visitors and asked for permission to consult his solicitor for the purpose of instituting court proceedings for assault . He says that this was refused as he had already one petition pending .
58 . On 22 October 1976 he received a letter stamped 19 September 1976 by the censor . He complained on the same day about the delayed distribution of his mail . 59 . On 2 November 1976 the applicant again complained to the prison Board of Visitors about the interference with his mail which made it virtually impossible for him to communicate freely with his solicitor regarding future litigation . According to the applicant the Board of Visitors concluded that, with one exception, his mail had not been unduly delayed or interfered with . 60 . On 3 November 1976 the applicant wrote a letter to his solicitor . Although this letter was not stopped it was sent to the Home Office . 61 . On 3 November the applicant was informed by the Governor that his solicitor had written to him on 29 October 1976 but that he was not going to let the applicant see the letter . According to the applicant it was finally given to him on 11 November 1976 after having been sent to the Home Office . 62 . On 11 November 1976 the applicant was also given two letters from his solicitor which were dated 27 October and 8 November 1976 respectively . 63 . On 18 November 1976 the applicant again wrote a letter to his solicitor . The letter was according to the applicant not mailed but sent to the Home 0ffice . 64 . A letter written by the applicant to his solicitor on 6 February 1977 was allegedly also submitted to the Prison Department of the Home Office . 65 . In September and October 1976 the applicant's solicitor wrote various letters to the Home Office Prison Department and to the Governor of Winchester prison about the applicant . He wanted, inter alia, confirmation that their correspondence was reaching the applicant and an assurance that they would be able to represent the applicant when he appeared before the Inquiry of the Chief Inspector to give his evidence about the disturbances at Hull . The solicitor was informed by the Secretary of State, however, that the applicant had been granted permission to consult with his solicitor exclusively regarding his petition to the Commission . He was not at the time allowed to consult his solicitor with a view to taking legal action through the courts in relation to matters arising from the disturbances at Hull prison (letters of 30 September 1976 and 27 October 1976) .
66 . Finally, in a reply of 29 March 1977 to a petition dated 8 March the Secretary of State informed the applicant that his complaints about treatment at Hull prison had been referred to the Humberside police fo r - 127 -
investigation . Pending the outcome of the investigation the applicant was not allowed access to his legal adviser for the purpose of pursuing these complaints by civil action in the courts against the prison authorities . He was furthermore not allowed to make an application to the Divisional Court about the matter . He could, however, be granted facilities to seek legal advice about the decision not to grant him access to his solicitor on this matter at the present time . 67 . The respondent Governmenr acknowledge that cert ain correspondence from the applicant to his solicitors was delayed, temporarily, whilst the Governor sought posting instruction from headquarters leg letters of 6 and 28 November 1976) . The referral was made because it appeared that the applicant was using the fact that he could freely correspond with his solicitor in connection with his complaint to the Commission to appraise his solicitors of any complaint he had in connection with prison treatment even though the complaint had not been the subject of an internal investigation . According to the Government the Governor was advised that any documents or letters submitted by the applicant to his solicitors in connection with his application to the Commission should be posted . 68 . Other letters from the applicant to his solicitors were stopped on the grounds that they involved complaints concerning prison treatment which had not at the time of writing been subject of internal inquiry . One of these letters, dated 27 September 1976, contained complaints concerning censorship of the applicant's correspondence by the prison authorities and was therefore stopped . The Government say that it was open to the applicant at that point to petition the Secretary of State to remedy his grievance . 69 . As to the matter regarding the legal aid form enclosed with the solicitor's letter of 21 September 1976 (cf . para . 54 above), the Government noted that, on 27 September 1976, the applicant saw the Deputy Governor in connection with an application he had made i .a . to prepare a petition to the Commission and to have the assistance and advice of solicitors for this purpose . Initially these requests were granted . However, later in the inte rv iew the applicant indicated that he did not intend to approach the Commission but wanted to take legal action in the domestic courts . Since the applicant refused to give a firm understanding of which course he intended to pursue, the Deputy Governor invoked his earlier decisions until the applicant's intentions were made clear . It was also explained that the applicant would not be allowed to take legal action regarding the assaults until his complaint had been ventilated through the proper channels . The applicant had an outstanding petition on the matter which had been made on 28 September 1976 . 70 . The respondent Government finally submitted in this context that on 5 December 1978, following a review of his case, the applicant was informe d
- 128-
that he could correspond with his solicitors about the possible commencement of civil proceedings in connection with the alleged assaults .
VI . Interference with correspondence containing complaints of prison treatment and conditions but where no legal action was intende d 71 . The applicant states that on 3 November he wrote a letter to his Member of Parliament, Mr P ., concerning the interference with his correspondence with his solicitor . The letter was stopped by the prison authorities . On 6 November the applicant complained to the Governor about the stopping of this letter . 72 . The applicant further says that, on 11 November 1976, the applicant was told that he would not be allowed to send to his solicitor a copy of his statement to the Chief Inspector of Prisons . By letter of 10 November 1976 the Home Office had further informed the applicant's solicitor that it would be possible for him to have access to the applicant in order to assist him to prepare any written statement to the Chief Inspector . Since any statements which prisoners made to the Chief Inspector for his inquiry would be for that purpose only, the applicant would not be allowed to send any copy thereof to his solicitor (cf . para . 65 above) . 73 . The applicant states that, on 18 November 1976, he wrote again to Mr P . about his solitary 'confinement and the interference with his correspondence between himself and his solicitor . This letter was never mailed by the prison authorities . A letter to Mrs K . was, according to the applicant, sent to the Home Office . 74 . It finally appears in this context that on 13 December 1976 the applicant's Member of Parliament, Mr P ., had written to the Secretary of State on the applicant's behalf . In his replies of 25 January and 22 February 1977 the Secretary explained the rules regarding prisoners' correspondence and the reasons why some of the applicant's letters had been stopped . 75 . The respondent Government then submitted in the first place that, as to the letter addressed to Mrs K ., there was no record of this letter having ever been forwarded to the Prison Department of the Home Office as alleged . It appeared moreover from the local record held at the prison establishments that the applicant wrote once to Mrs K ., namely on 12 November 1976 and it was recorded that the letter was posted . 76 . The Government acknowledge, on the other hand, that the applicant was not allowed to send his solicitors a copy of the written statement he had prepared for the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service Icf . letter No . 5, para . 82) and that his solicitors had been informed about this (cf . para . 721 .
- 129 -
77 . The Government stress in the next place that at no time had Mr P . been given special facilities for communicating with, or visiting, prisoners who had made complaints arising from the Hull disturbance . As to correspondence with him, the same prior ventilation rule which applies to Members of Parliament generally also applied to him . Thus, the applicant's letter of 2 November 1976 (the applicant refers to a letter of 3 November) to Mr . P was stopped since firstly, it contained a reference to the applicani's wish to take legal action against officers for assault although he had petitioned on this matter and was awaiting a reply . Secondly, the letter contained numerous complaints alleging interference with the correspondence between himself and his solicitors . The applicant had maintained that these grievances had been aired before the Board of Visitors on 2 November 1976 and that the Board had found that his mail had not been unduly delayed or interfered with except in one instance . According to the respondent Government, however, the record of the application before the Board reveals that the Board did not deem it appropriate to adopt a definitive stand in relation to the complaints until the Prison Department had first been allowed an opportunity to consider the issued raised by the letters referred to them . In December 1976 the Prison Department advised that any letter from the applicant to his solicitors in connection with his petition to the Commission should be posted without referral . The respondent Government finally contend that it is incorrect that the letter to Mr P ., dated 18 November 1976, was stopped . They submit that it is recalled that the letter was referred to the Governor on 19 November and posted to Mr P . on 1 December 1976 .
COMPLAINT S 78 . In respect of Parr / of this application, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in that by reason of the obstruction on the part of the prison authorities he was prevented from consulting his solicitor and from having access to counsel . He further alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as his correspondence was interfered with . The relevant letters are the following :
1 . stopping of letter client/solicitor dated 20 January 1976 2 . stopping of letter dated 17 February 1976 to Mr L ., M P 3 . stopping in March 1976 of second letter to Mr L . 79 . As to Part ll of the application, the applicant alleges in the first palce that the following events at Hull prison constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention : 1 . the assault by senior officer D . early in the morning of 4 September 1976 - 130 -
2 . the assault by officer B . later that same morning ; 3 . the assault by a prison officer whose name is unknown, later that same morning ; 4 . the inhuman and degrading treatment by officers B . and S . that same morning ; 5 . the assault by a number of prison officers during "slop out" that morning ; 6 . the assault at approximately 10 a .m . by officer U . and others during removal from the prison ; 7 . the assault by senior officer R . at the moment of removal from Hull prison . 80 . As to Part /// of the application, the applicant further complains that he was . kept segregated under Rule 43 in Winchester prison and also of the conditions in which he was isolated . 81 . With respect to Part IV of the application the applicant submits that the harassment, intimidation and so forth to which he was subjected at Leeds prison .amounts to a breach of Article 3 of the the Convention . 82 . With regard to Parts V and VI of the application, finally, the applicant alleges a,breach of Article 6 of the Convention . He says in this respect that he has% continually been denied the right to legal assistance and representation in connection with the preparation of his reports to the Chief Inspector of Prisons, the preparation of his petition to the Home Office and the representation of his case to the English courts . His efforts to institute civil proceedings have come to nothing . The, applicant also alleges a violation of Article 8 since his correspondence has been unduly interfered with in the following way : 1 . interference with solicitor/client correspondence on 27 September 1976 ;
2' censoring and stopping of a client/solicitor letter of 27 September 1976 ; 3 : censoring and stopping of two client/solicitor letters date 30 September â¢1976 ; 41 . censoring and stopping of a letter from the applicant to his MP dated 3 November 1976 ; 5 : censoring and stopping of a statement made by him for his solicitor dated 11 November 1976 ; 6 ; censoring and stopping of two letters, one from the applicant to his MP and the other to a personal friend, both stopped on 21 November 1976 ;
- 131 -
7 . holding and threatening to censor and stop a client/solicitor letter of 3 November 1976 ;
8 . holding back and delying of two client/solicitor letters dated 28 November and 2 December 1976 ; 9 . general interference with and delaying of solicitor/client correspondence throughout the period, such interference being without justification . 83 . The applicant says that he has done all that can reasonably be expected of him to exhaust his domestic remedies . He wants the Commission to rule under Article 13 of the Convention that it is his right to seek an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding the violations complained of have been committed by persons in an official capacity . 84 . The applicant has also argued that, should his application for an Order of Certiorari ultimately not be successful, the proceedings before the Board of Visitors would in his view appear to be a clear breach of Article 6 of the Convention . However, the decision of the Board of Visitors was quashed by the Divisional Court (see para . 25 above) and at the hearing before the Commission it was stated on the applicant's behalf that this matter was not now proceeded with .
THE LA W Assaults in Hull prison in September 1976 - Article 3 1 . The applicant alleges that he was assaulted on several occasions at Hull prison on 4 September 1976 . He considers that these assaults constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention which provides that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" . 2 . The respondent Government do not contest the applicant's version of the events complained of . They submit, however, that this part of the application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies since the applicant has not brought a civil action for damages against the prison officers responsible for the assaults . 3 . Under Article 26 of the Convention the "Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law . . ." . It is not in dispute between the parties that a civil action for damages is, in principle, a remedy capable of providing sufficient and adequate redress in respect of th e
- 132-
applicant's complaints . The Commission, following its previous decisions in similar cases, is of the view that such action is a remedy which the applicant is in normal circumstances obliged to exhaust before it can deal with his present case (see eg Applications Nos . 5577-5587/72, Donnelly and others v . the United Kingdom, Decisions and Reports 4, p . 4and Application No .7819/77 Decisions and Reports 14, p . 1861 . 4 . In the present case the Commission must nevertheless consider whether there are any special circumstances which, in accordance with the generally recognised rules of international law, absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust this remedy since, at the date when he for the first time raised the present complaint before the Commission (20 October 19761 and for more than two years thereafter, he did not have access to his solicitor for the purpose of seeking legal advice in connection with the assaults . By virtue of Circular Instruction 45/1975 the applicant was in the first place required to ventilate his complaints about his treatment at Hull prison before the prison authorities so that they could be the subject of an internal investigation . No facilities for the institution of civil proceedings would be granted until the investigation had been carried out by them . 5 . The respondent Government confirm that as from September 1976 until 5 September 1978 the applicant was not permitted to consult his solicitor for the purpose of launching a civil action for damages . They admit, however, that as from March 1977 the prior internal ventilation rule was wrongly applied in this case and should not have covered the criminal proceedings against the prison officers . They consider nevertheless that since the applicant is now in a position to sue the prison officers he should do so, since there is no ground for contending that the remedy of a civil action has been rendered nugatory or ineffective because of the delay of 27 months . 6 . The present applicant was consequently placed in a position where his access to an effective and adequate remedy was made dependent, firstly, on his going through a separate preliminary internal procedure and, secondly, on his awaiting the outcome of the public prosecution, both procedures which do not in the conditions of the present case, constitute in themselves "domestic remedies" for the purpose of Article 26 . 7 . It is recalled that the situation was similar in the case of Campbell (see aforementioned Application No . 7819/77) . The applicant, who also complained of ill-treatment by prison officers, was for about thirteen months refused to seek legal advice for the purpose of suing the officers . In its decision the Commission noted that had the applicant co-operated with the internal investigation procedure, the restrictions on his access to court would have been removed four to five months after the taking place of the incident complained of . In the Commission's opinion the applicant had not shown that "the preliminary internal inquiry procedure deprived the remedy of a civi l
- 133 -
action for damages of any reasonable prospect of success and thereby rendered it ineffective" . 8 . The Commission considers that, in spite of their similarities, there are some important differences between the present case and that of Mr Campbell . For instance, the delay in granting access to legal advice is considerably longer in the present case . It is in the next place of particular importance to note that had Mr Campbell co-operated with the internal investigation, he would have had access to legal facilities after four to five months after the alleged assaults . The remedy of a civil action for damages could thus have been available to him when he for the first time raised the relevant complaints before the Commission . In the present case, on the other hand, the applicant was through no fault of his own barred from availing himself of this remedy for about 25 to 26 months after the introduction on 20 October 1976 of the complaints regarding the assaults . 9 . The Commission considers it to be ot fundamental importance that an existing remedy for an alleged violation of the Convention is in principle immediately available to every aggrieved person and in particular in cases of alleged maltreatment . The Commission accepts nevertheless that a certain limited period may elapse in a case like the present, where the prison authorities wish to carry out an internal inquiry into the allegations prior to granting the complainant access to legal facilities . It ought to be stressed, on the other hand, that any such inquiry, however justifiable, must not encroach upon the immediacy and effectiveness of the remedy of a civil action for damages . 1o . In the view of the Commission it cannot be considered reasonable, in the context of Article 26, to deny, during a period of 27 months to the alleged victim of a treatment contrary to Article 3, access to the sole remedy capable of providing him immediate, adequate and sufficient redress for his alleged grievances . It is not conclusive tor the purpose of Article 26 that the applicant is in a position to bring civil proceedings at the time when the Commission decides on the admissibility of his case . Since the applicant did not have at his disposal the remedy of a civil action for damages within a reasonable time from the incident in Hull prison, this part of his application to the Commission is not now barred under the domestic remedies rule in Article 26 of the Convention . 11 . It follows that this part of the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Articles 26 and 27 .3 of the Convention . 12 . The applicant has submitted that the assaults on his person in Hull prison amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention . The respondent Government have neither confirmed nor denied the applicant' s -134-
version of these assaults . On the other hand, they have admitted that following the riot, certain prison officers ill-treated a substantial number of inmates by beating, kicking andotherwise assaulting them . 13 . Having examined the information and submissions presented by the parties, the Commission finds that this aspect of the case raises substantial questions of interpretation of the Convention and is of such complexity that its determination should depend on a full examination on the merits . 14 . This part of the application is therefore admissible, no ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established .
II . Exclusion from association and conditions at Winchester prison Article 3 15 . The applicant has complained of his being detained for about twelve weeks in solitary confinement in Winchester prison and also of the cell conditions concerned . 16 . The respondent Government have submitted, on the other hand, that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded under Article 3 of the Convention . They' argue, in the alternative, that the complaint regarding the cell conditions is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies for the apparent failure of the applicant to raise the question of lack of heating or of the sleeping conditions in his cell with the Governor or with the Board of Visitors . 17 . As previously stated, the Commission "may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law" . 18 . The applicant has submitted that he complained to the Home Secretary about his isolation on 28 September 1976 and to the Board of Visitors on 2 November 1976 . Thes respondent Government have made no comment with respect to the petition to the Home Secretary . In their submission, however, it does not appear from the record of the Board of Visitors that the applicant complained about his segregation until 7 December 1976 . 19 . The Commission in the first place is satisfied that, so far as the applicant has complained about his being excluded from association under Rule 43 of the Prison Rules, he must be considered to have satisfied the conditions of Article 26 of the Convention . As to the cell conditions as such the question arises, on the other hand, whether the applicant also ought to have raised each of the various aspects of these conditions with the competent prison authorities . However, the Commission does not consider it necessary to go further into this question in the present case, since the complaints concerned can in any event be dismissed for the reasons given below .
- 135 -
20 . The Commission has thereafter examined whether the conditions of the applicant's detention in Winchester prison disclose a prima /acie violation of Article 3 of the Convention . 21 . The Commission notes in the first place that the exclusion of a prisoner from the prison community does not in itself constitute a kind of inhuman or degrading treatment Isee eg Applications Nos . 7572/76, 7586/76 and 7587/76, Ensslin, Baader, Raspe v . the Federal Republic of Germany, Decisions and Reports 14, p . 64) . It considers nevertheless that prolonged solitary confinement is undesirable, particularly when the prisoner is in detention on remand, but also when he is detained after having been lawfully convicted . Prolonged solitary confinement might thus, in certain circumstances, raise an issue inter alia under Article 3 of the Convention . 22 . The Commission has therefore examined whether the confinement to which the applicant was subjected during about twelve weeks shows signs of such severity as that envisaged by Article 3 of the Convention . It appears firstly from the submissions of both parties that between 4 September 1976 and 17 October 1976 the applicant had no human contact whatever with the other prisoners, only with the prison officers . As from 18 October 1976 he could exercise one hour per day with the two other category A prisoners from Hull and from 27 October 1976 he was also permitted to associate with them while "slopping out" . It is not known to the Commission to what extent the applicant was receiving family members and friends during the time when he was on Rule 43 . It has been submitted by the respondent Government that he was allowed such visits in the normal way, and this has not been denied by him . The Commission points out, on the other hand, that the applicant has alleged interalia that as a result of the solitary confinement he was feeling "very depressed", that he "was having great difficulty sleeping at night" and that he had "developed a facial twitching" . The Commission notes that the applicant has submitted no medical evidence to show that the segregation would have caused any adverse effects to his mental or physical health . He says however that he mentioned his "minor symptoms" to a medical officer on 1 October 1976 but that he was given no treatment . At this time the applicant had been excluded from association for nearly one month . Without neglecting that also a relatively short segregation may have negative effects on a person's health, the Commission considers nevertheless that it would have been reasonable to expect that the applicant would have consulted the prison doctor again had his problems been as grave as he alleges .
23 . It is undoubtedly a serious measure to exclude a prisoner from all or almost all contact with the normal prison society for a long period . However, having considered all the particular circumstances of the present case the Commission finds nevertheless that there is no indication that the - 136 -
segregation in itself was so severe as to constitute an inhuman or degrading treatment as understood by Article 3 of the Convention . 24 . The Commission has in the next place had regard to the applicant's remaining complaints concerning the cell conditions . 25 . The respondent Government have admitted that in the cell where the applicant was kept the first three weeks of his detention in Winchester there were cockroaches and the sleeping conditions were not as comfortable as they might have been . 26 . It would thus appear true that material conditions in the cell where the applicant was kept at some stage lacked a desirable material standard . The Commission considers it important to point out in this respect, however, that, according to the respondent Government, Winchester prison is an old prison which was at the relevant time undergoing major repairs and renovation work which further reduced the accommodation available and resulted in an abnormal degree of discomfort for the inmates . The Commission finally notes in this connection that there is no indication that the cell where the applicant was placed in September was not warm enough . 27 . Bearing all these considerations in mind and considering that a number of prisoners were transferred from Hull to Winchester, the Commission finds it understandable that the prison administration was faced with difficulties in arranging proper accommodation for the inmates . In the light of the special circumstances of this case the Commission concludes, accordingly, that the conditions of the applicant's detention do not disclose a prima facie violation of Article 3 of the Convention . 28 . Finally, the Commission finds that this conclusion also holds true in respect of the overall situation of the applicant's detention in Winchester prison .
29 . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 .2 of the Convention . III . Treatment in Leeds prison - Article 3 30 . The applicant has complained furthermore that the treatment to which he was subjected in Leeds prison violates Article 3 of the Convention . 31 . The respondent Government has argued that the applicant has failed to exhaust his domestic remedies under Article 26 of the Convention since he did not present any additional details of his complaints either to the Board of Visitors or to the Home Secretary . He had been requested to do so in the Home Secretary's reply of 29 March 1977 to his petition of 16 February 1977 . 32 . It is true that the applicant never submitted further details of his complaints following the aforementioned request of the Home Secretary . The
- 137 -
Commission notes, however, that on 7 March 1977, that is to say after having petitioned the Home Secretary but prior to receiving his reply, the applicant unsuccessfully complained to the Board of Visitors about the harassment . The question now arises whether the applicant has satisfied the conditions of Article 26 by raising his complaints both before the Home Secretary and the Board of Visitors, or, whether, for this purpose, he should in addition also have presented to either of these bodies additional details as requested by the Home Secretary in his reply of 29 March 1977 . The Commission considers, however, that this question can be left open in the present case since, even on the assumption that Article 26 has been complied with, this part of the application must be dismissed for the reasons given below . 33 . The Commission has considered whether the harassment to which the applicant was allegedly subjected in Leeds prison disclose a prima facie violation of Article 3 of the Convention . The Commission does not consider that the treatment complained of could amount either to torture or to inhuman treatment . Accordingly, the question to be answered is, whether there is any indication that the alleged harassment was so serious as to constitute "degrading treatment" in the sense of Article 3 of the Convention . The Commission recalls in this connection that in order for a treatment to be "degrading" and contrary to Article 3, the humiliation and debasement involved must attain a particular level (see eg mut . mut. Eur . Court of Human Rights, Tyrer Case, judgment of 25 April 1978, para . 30) . 34 . The applicant has submitted that the prison officers intimidated, provoked and threatened him in various ways as set out in paragraph 50 above . He has not, however, named the prison officers responsible (or such harassment, not indicated any specific dates when the relevant acts were committed, although he has given such information in respect of other complaints . On the other hand, the Government have made no observations with regard to the facts of the allegations concerned, their arguments bearing exclusively on the domestic remedies issue . 35 . The Commission is in the first place of the opinion that there is cause for concern about the manner in which the applicant says that he was treated by prison officers at Leeds prison . It is true that his allegations in this respect have not been admitted by the respondent Government but the Commission finds nothing to suggest that the applicant's submissions are not reliable . However, even on the assumption that these submissions correspond to the truth, the Commission concludes, after having examined the facts as presented by the applicant, that the treatment to which he was subjected, however usatisfactory it may be, does not attain the level of severity envisaged by the concept "degrading treatment" in Article 3 of the Convention .
- 138 _
36 . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within in the meaning of Article 27 .2 of the Convention .
IV . Contact with solicitor and Member of Parliament - Articles 6 and 8 a . Access to court for the purpose of bringing a civil action for libe l 37 . The applicant complains firstly about the refusal to let him contact a solicitor for the purpose of bringing a libel action against a prison warder following an incident in Hull prison on 14 January 1976 . In connection with this matter the prison authorities stopped letters written by the applicant both to his solicitor and his Member of Parliament . The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 insofar as he was refused contact with his solicitor and Article 8 insofar as his correspondence was interfered with . 38 . The Commission recalls that in its judgment in the Golder Case, the Court held that Article 6 .1 of the Convention secures "the right to have any claim relating to . . . civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal" (see European Court of Human Rights, Series A, No . 18, para . 36) . It also held that "hindering the effective exercise of a right may amount to a breach of that right, even if the hindrance is of a temporary character" (ibid . para . 26) . It further stated that the right of access to the courts "is not absolute" but that there was room for limitations permitted by implication libid . para . 38) . It also indicated, with reference to its previous case-law in the Belgian Linguistic Case, that such limitations must not injure the substance of the right (ibid . para . 38) . 39 . As regards Article 8 of the Convention it provides in its first paragraph inreralia that "everyone has the right to respect for . . . his correspondence" . Interference with this right may only be justified on the grounds set out in the second paragraph ot Article 8 which reads as follows "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with 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 and morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . " 40 . The respondent Government submit that the delay before the applicant was able to obtain access to his solicitor was caused solely by himself . In their view, the delay involved did not, in any event, injure the substance of the applicant's right under Article 6 . As regards Article 8, they contend that the stopping of the letters to the lawyer and the Member of Parliament constituted an interference with the applicant's correspondence which was justifiable for reasons accepted under Article 8 .2 of the Convention . They submit that this part of the application should therefore be declared manifestly ill-founded .
_139_
41 . Having examined the submissions of the parties in the light of the aforementioned jurisprudence of the Court, the Commission considers that this part of the application raises substantial issues of interpretation of the Convention which are of such complexity that they can only be determined in an examination on the merits . In particular, the question arises whether a delay of two months, or possibly less, in allowing the applicant the facilities necessary for the bringing of his claim before the court was compatible with Article 6 .1 . Insofar as the applicant was not allowed to correspond with his solicitor and Member of Parliament, serious and complex questions also arise under Article 8 of the Convention which guarantees inter alia the right of everyone to respect for this correspondence . 42 . The Commission finds that this part of the application cannot therefore be considered to be manifestly ill-founded under the Convention . Considering that there appears to be no other ground of inadmissibility, this part of the application must therefore be declared admissible .
b . Access to court for the purpose of bringing a civil ection for demage s 43 . The applicant complains in the next place that as from September 1976 until 5 December 1978 he was not allowed to contact his solicitors for the purpose of bringing a civil action for damages against the prison officers who were responsible for the assaults on his person on 4 September 1976 . He argues that he was therefore again denied his right to access to the courts contrary to Article 6 .1 and that Article 8 has been violated since his correspondence to his solicitors was unduly interfered with . 4 . The respondent Government submit that, in the light of the present application, they reviewed the manner in which the prior internal ventilation rule was applied to the applicant's case . They concluded that the police investigation into the alleged assaults on inmates in Hull prison and the subsequent prosecution of certain prison staff cannot be regarded as a part of the normal existing internal channels by which prisoners' complaints are ventilated . At the end of 1978 they consequently reversed their earlier decision and on 5 December 1978 the applicant was informed that he was free to launch the civil action desired by him . They consider nevertheless that until the Chief Inspector's inquiry was superseded by the police investigation in March 1977 the aforesaid rule was properly applied and its application consistent with the Convention . Although regretting the delay caused to the applicant regarding the grant of legal facilities, it had not, in the opinion of the respondent Government, injured the substance of the applicant's right under Article 6 .1 of the Convention . It is submitted that this complaint should therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded . 45 . The Commission can in this context limit itself to refer to what it has already stated with regard to the admissibility of Part IV .a Isee paras . 37-42 of "The Law"I . The reasons there given for declaring that part of the application admissible are, a fortiori, applicable to the present complaints . _14p_
The undisputed fact that the applicant was for two years and three months prevented from consulting his solicitors for the purpose of obtaining their legal advice with respect to civil proceedings for damages raises substantial issues of interpretation of Article 6 .1 of the Convention which are of such complexity that they can only be determined in an examination on the merits . Insofar as correspondence between the applicant and his solicitors was stopped or otherwise interfered with, serious and complex questions also arise under Article 8 of the Convention . 46 . The Commission finds that this part of the application cannot therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded under the Convention . Considering that there appears to be no other ground of inadmissibility, this part of the application must therefore be declared admissible .
V . Interference with correspondence containing complaints of prison treatment and conditions but where no legal action was intended - Article 8 47 . The applicant has in the next place complained of interference, contrary to Article 8, with his following correspondence : two letters, dated 3 and 18 November 1976, to his Member of Parliament were stopped by the prison authorities ; a letter of 18 November 1976 to Mrs K . was sent to the Home Office ; on 11 November 1976 he was refused permission to send to his sollicitor a copy of his statement to the Chief Inspector Prisons . 48 . The respondent Government submit that as regards the letter to Mrs K . there is no evidence that this letter was stopped and that this complaint should therefore be dismissed as manifestly ill-founded . With respect to the decision to stop the applicant from forwarding to his solicitor a copy of the statement which he intended to prepare for the Chief Inspector this was, in the opinion of the Government, consistent with Article 8 .2 . It is submitted, furthermore, that, as regards the two letters to the applicant's Member ot Parliament, the letter of 18 November 1976 was posted on 1 December 1976 and received by him . The second letter was according to the Government properly stopped . Accordingly they consider that this part of the application should be rejected as manifestly ill-founded . 49 . The Commission notes that the facts of this part of the case are to a certain extent in dispute between the parties . The Commission finds however that the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence was interfered with on at least two and possibly four of the occasions referred to by him . The questions to what extent the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence was interfered with and whether any such interference was justified for one or more of the reasons set out in Article 8 .2 of the Convention are substantial matters of fact and law which necessitate an examination on the merits of this part of the case . 50 . It follows that this part of the application cannot be regarded as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 .2 of the Conventio n
- 141 -
and must therefore be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established . VI . Adjudication before the Boerd of Visitors - A rt icle 6 51 . With respect to the adjudication of the Hull %Board of Visitors on 14 December 1976, the applicant has finally submitted that, should his application for an Order of Certiorari ultimately not be successful, the proceedings would in his view appear to be a clear breach of Article 6 of the Convention . 52 . The Commission has had regard to the fact ihat the Divisional Court decided that the said hearing before the Board of Visitors was unfair . Consequently, the Court quashed all the findings concerning the applicant's involvement in the riot . Without going into the question whether Article 6 was at all applicable to the proceedings before the Board of Visitors in this particular case, the Commission considers that the applicant's complaint has been effectively met by the decision of the Divisional Court .
53 . In these circumstances the applicant cannot, consequently, claim any longer under Article 25 to be the victim of an alleged violation by the United Kingdom of the rights set forth in the Convention in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Visitors . 54 . It follows that the remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 .2 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without predjuging the merit s - the applicant's complaints of assault in Hull prison on 4 September 1976 ;
- the applicant's complaints of interence with his contact with solicitor and Member of Parliament in order to bring civil actions for libel and damages ; - the applicant's remaining complaints of interference with correspondence containing complaints of prison treatmen t
DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
- 142-
I TRADUCTIONI EN FAI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant, citoyen du Royaume-Uni, est nÃ© en 1939 . Lors de l'introduction de sa requÃªte, il purgeait une peine d'emprisonnement Ã vie pour assassinat Ã la prison de Hull . Il est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par MM . Philip Hamer 8 Co, solicitors Ã© Hull . Le requÃ©rant se plaint des brutalitÃ©s qui lui ont Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©es par des gardiens de prison, des conditions de dÃ©tention auxquelles il a Ã©tÃ© soumis et des ingÃ©rences dont sa correspondance fart l'objet . Les faits de la cause ne sont contestÃ©s entre les pa rt ies que sur certains points . Tels qu'ils ressortent des observations prÃ©sentÃ©es par Ã©crit et oralement par le requÃ©rant et le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, ils peuvent Ãªtre rÃ©sumÃ©s comme suit :
Contacts avec un solicitor et un dÃ©putÃ© en vue d'intenter un procÃ¨s en diffamatio n 2 . Le requÃ©rant a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il a fait l'objet d'un rapport pour avoir enfreint la discipline pÃ©nitentiaire en ayant proposÃ© Ã un gardien, le 14 janvier 1976, de lui verser de l'argent contre remise de ses clefs de sÃ©curitÃ© . Lorsque son cas a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© le 15 janvier 1976, le requÃ©rant a plaidÃ© non coupable et a prÃ©tendu avoir fait cette proposition par maniÃ©re de plaisanterie . Le directeur l'a jugÃ© coupable et lui a adressÃ© un avertissement . 3 . Le 20 janvier 1976, le requÃ©rant a sollicitÃ© du Gouverneur l'autorisation de demander Ipetitionl au Ministre de l'intÃ©rieur (Home Secretaryl la permission de consulter un homme de loi en vue d'intenter un procÃ©s en diffamation au gardien susmentionnÃ© . Toutefois, le directeur aurait refusÃ© cette autorisation pour la raison que le requÃ©rant devait d'abord lui faire parvenir une dÃ©claration Ã©crite exposant ses allÃ©gations . Le requÃ©ram s'est refusÃ© Ã Ã©tablir cette dÃ©claration, estimant qu'aucune disposition ne l'y obligeait . 4 . Le mÃªme jour, le requÃ©rant a Ã©crit Ã son solicitor pour se plaindre de la dÃ©cision du directeur . La lettre a Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e parce que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas obtenu l'autorisation d'Ã©crire Ã son solicitor pour lui demander conseil . 5 . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare s'Ãªtre catÃ©goriquement refusÃ© Ã exposer par Ã©crit les allÃ©gations qu'il voulait formuler contre le gardien mis en cause et le directeur l'a ultÃ©rieurement autorisÃ© Ã adresser une demande au MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur, sans avoir prÃ©alablement eu communication d'un texte rÃ©capitulant lesdites allÃ©gations .
- 143 -
6 . Le requÃ©rant a adressÃ© sa demande au Ministre de l'intÃ©rieur le 23 janvier 1976 . Le 29 janvier 1976, toutefois, le requÃ©rant a dÃ©clarÃ© au directeur qu'il souhaitait retirer cette demande, car le directeur adjoint lui avait dit la veille qu'il pourrait Ãªtre accusÃ© d'avoir profÃ©rÃ© des allÃ©gations mensongÃ¨res contre le gardien . 7 . Le 17 fÃ©vrier 1976, le requÃ©rant s'est plaint au comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons . Il lui a demandÃ© l'autorisation de se mettre en rapport avec son solicitor, mais ce tte demande aurait Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e . 8 . Le mÃ©me jour, le requÃ©rant a Ã©crit Ã son dÃ©putÃ©, M . L ., pour se plaindre du refus des autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires de l'autoriser Ã consulter son solicitor . Cette lettre a Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e par le directeur adjoint, pour la raison que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas adressÃ© au directeur une dÃ©claration Ã©xposant en dÃ©tail ses allÃ©gations Ã l'encontre du gardien . Au dÃ©but de mars 1976, le requÃ©rant a adressÃ© une deuxiÃ¨me lettre Ã son dÃ©putÃ©, qui a Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e pour les mÃªmes raisons que la premiÃ©re . Le 19 fÃ©vrier 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã consulter son solicito r .9
en vue de la prÃ©paration d'une requÃªte 9 la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme . II n'a toujours pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã aborder d'autres sujets . 10 . Dans une lettre du 4 mars 1976 au solicitor du requÃ©rant, le directeur de la prison a confirmÃ© que si le requÃ©rant avait la permission de le consulter au sujet dÃ¨ la prÃ©paration d'une requÃªte Ã la Commission, il n'avait pas l'autorisation de le consulter en vue de l'engagement Ã©ventuel d'une action en justice au Royaume-Uni . Dans sa rÃ©ponse du 8 mars 1976 au directeur, le solicitor a critiquÃ© cette thÃ¨se, pour la raison qu'en liaison avec la prÃ©paration de la requÃªte Ã la Commission, il lui incombait aussi de conseiller le requÃ©rant au sujet de poursuites judiciaires Ã©ventuelles en Angleterre . Le solicitor a donc fait valoir qu'en refusant au requÃ©rant le droit de consulter son solicitor, le Gouvernement lui dÃ©niait un droit protÃ©gÃ© par l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention, comme cela avait Ã©tÃ© expliquÃ© dans l'Affaire Golder . Dans une lettre du 12 mars 1976, le directeur a expliquÃ© la politique du MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur consistant A offrir aux dÃ©tenus des facilitÃ©s pour obtenir des consultations juridiques en matiÃ©re civile . Il a aussi dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il comprenait tous les arguments formulÃ©s concernant la prÃ©sentation d'une requÃ©te Ã la Commission, mais qu'Â« il n'Ã©tait pas opportun pour M . Reed d'introduire une requÃªte devant la Commission europÃ©enne Ã ce stade ; tant que son grief n'aura pas fait l'objet d'une enquÃªte interne, il ne se verra pas accorder de facilitÃ©s pour consulter un homme de loi au sujet de l'engagement Ã©ventuel d'une action en justice dans ce pays Â» . 11 . Le 17 mars 1976, sur les conseils de son solicitor, le requÃ©rant a fait connaitre ses allÃ©gations par Ã©crit au directeur . Le 24 mars 1976, celui-ci a dÃ©clarÃ© au requÃ©rant qu'il avait examinÃ© ses plaintes et les avait trouvÃ©es infondÃ©es . Par ailleurs, il a dÃ©clarÃ© que le requÃ©rant devrait se plaindre a u -144-
comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons Ã©galement et qu'il ne serait toujours pas autorisÃ© Ã© se mettre en rapport avec son solicitor . Toutefois, deux jours plus tard, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© qu'il n'avait plus Ã se plaindre au comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons . Par ailleurs, il a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã consulter son solicitor au sujet de l'aspect civile de la diffamation dont il aurait fait l'objet de la part d'un gardieri en liaison avec l'incident du 14 janvier 1976 .
12 . Le requÃ©rant a dÃ©posÃ© ultÃ©rieurement une demande d'assistance judiciaire, que la commission locale de la Â« Law Society Â» a rejetÃ©e le 23 avril 1976 . 13 . Le 7 mai 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©crit Ã son dÃ©putÃ©, M . L ., pour lui demander de procÃ©der Ã une enquÃªte approfondie sur son affaire . Par lettre du 5 juillet 1976 Ã M . L ., le Ministre a expliquÃ© la raison pour laquelle les lettres du requÃ©rant avaient Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©es et s'est dÃ©clarÃ© convaincu que celui-ci avait Ã©tÃ© Â« bien traitÃ© au regard de la rÃ©glementation, compte tenu des divers aspects de son affaire Â» . 14 . Les observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur relatives Ã l'incident du 14 janvier 1976 ne diffÃ¨rent pas en substance de celles du requÃ©rant . Toutefois, le Gouvernement conteste que le 20 janvier 1976, le directeur ait refusÃ© au requÃ©rant l'autorisation de demander au Ministre la permission de consulter un solicitor en vue de l'engagement d'un procÃ©s en diffamation contre un gardien de prison . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© par le directeur que la marche Ã suivre consistait Ã lui soumettre la plainte par Ã©crit . Selon le Gouver,iernent, le requÃ©rant a dÃ©cidÃ© de ne pas soumettre la plainte au directeur, car il ne voulait pas courir le risque d'Ã©tre accusÃ© de formuler des allÃ©gations mensongÃ©res et inspirÃ©es par l'intention de nuire . 15 . La lettre adressÃ©e par le requÃ©rant 8 son solicitor le mÃªme jour (c'est-Ã -dire le 20 janvier) a Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e, parce qu'il ressortait clairement de son libellÃ© que le requÃ©rant cherchait Ã obtenir une consultation juridique au sujet d'un grief qui devait faire l'objet d'un examen interne prÃ©alable . 16 . Dans sa demande du 23 janvier 1976 adressÃ©e au Ministre, le requÃ©rant a sollicitÃ© la permission de consulter un homme de loi en vue de l'engagement d'un procÃ©s en diffamation contre un gardien . ConformÃ©ment Ã la circulaire 45/1975, le directeur a attirÃ© l'attention du requÃ©rant sur la mise en garde qui est faite aux dÃ©tenus lorsque leurs griefs visent un mauvais traitement ou comportent une allÃ©gation contre un gardien . Le Gouvernement prÃ©tend que le requÃ©rant a accusÃ© par la suite le directeur de l'avoir intimidÃ© et qu'il a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il souhaitait retirer sa demande . 17 . A la rÃ©union du 17 fÃ©vrier 1976 avec le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons de Hull, le directeur avait dÃ©crit la procÃ©dure que le requÃ©rant devait suivre, conformÃ©ment Ã la circulaire 45/1975, pour obtenir l'autorisation de consulter un homme de loi au sujet de la diffamation dont il prÃ©tendait avoir fait l'objet . Le PrÃ©sident du comitÃ© a conseillÃ© au requÃ©rant de suivre cette procÃ©dure . - 145 -
18 . En ce qui concerne la lettre du 18 fÃ©vrier 1976 adressÃ©e Ã M . L ., dÃ©putÃ©, elle soulevait, selon le Gouvernement, le mÃªme grief relatif au traitement subi en prison et elle a donc Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e . 19 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a soutenu, en outre, que le 18 fÃ©vrier 1976, le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© au Ministre la permission de consulter un homme de loi en vue d'engager une action civile pour interception des lettres du 20 janvier et du 18 fÃ©vrier 1976 . Le 9 avril 1976, le Ministre a rÃ©pondu que des facilitÃ©s raisonnables Ã cet effet pouvaient Ã¨tre accordÃ©es au requÃ©rant . 20 . Le 17 mars 1976, alors que la demande susmentionnÃ©e Ã©tait encore Ã l'Ã©tude, le requÃ©rant a soumis au directeur une dÃ©claration contenant des dÃ©tails sur la diffamation dont le gardien se serait rendu coupable . Le Gouvernement affirme que le directeur a accordÃ© par la suite au requÃ©rant les facilitÃ©s qu'il demandait pour consulter un solicitor au sujet de la prÃ©tendue diffamatio n II L'allÃ©gation de brutalitÃ©s commises Ã la prison de Hull en septembre 1976', " 21 . Cette partie de la requÃªte tire son origine de la mutinerie qui a eu lieu Ã la prison de Hull entre le 31 aoÃ»t et le 3 septembre 1976 . 22 . Le requÃ©rant a dÃ©clarÃ© n'avoir pas pris une part active Ã la mutinerie . Il s'est trouvÃ© sur le toil de la prison pendant celle-ci, pour la raison, selon lui, qu'aprÃ¨s Ãªtre restÃ© dans sa cellule pendant quelque temps, il est montÃ© sur le toit de peur que le feu soit mis Ã la prison . Il soutient que le 3 septembre 1976, le gardien M . a fouillÃ© sa personne et ses objets personnels . Puis il a reÃ§u l'ordre de descendre un couloir reliant l'aile B au bÃ¢timent principal . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare que des gardiens se tenaient des deux cÃ´tÃ©s du couloir et qu'un grand nombre d'entre eux l'ont injuriÃ© . L'un d'eux s'est avancÃ© vers lui en disant : a On va te tuer, comme tu as tuÃ© le chauffeur de taxi Â» . Le requÃ©rant soutient qu'on lui a demandÃ© ensuite de remettre tous ses effets personnels Ã un gardien en prÃ©sence d'un membre du comitÃ© des visiteurs . Puis il a Ã©tÃ© conduit Ã la cellule NÂ° 102, situÃ©e au dernier Ã©tage du bÃ¢timent, dans laquelle on l'a enfermÃ© Ã clef . Il n'y avait aucun meuble dans la cellule, pas mÃªme uri lit . On ne lui a donnÃ© ni couverture ni matelas, car a il n'en restait plus Â» . Il dÃ©clare qu'on lui a dit de dormir Ã mÃªme le sol . Pour toute nourriture ce jour-lÃ , on lui a donnÃ© deux sandwiches au fromage et au bo .uf de conserve dans l'aprÃ©s-midi, et un peu de soupe le soir . Pendant toute la nuit, les gardiens n'ont cessÃ© de donner des coups de pied et de matraque dans toutes les portes, de maniÃ©re Ã empÃªcher les dÃ©tenus de s'endormir . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend qu'il a d0 uriner par la fenÃªtre, les gÃ©rdiens ne lui ayant pas donnÃ© de seau . ' Voir aussi la Panie V des faits concernant les efforis dureauArant en vue notamment d'intenter une action eivile contre des gardiens oour brutali t Ã©
" Ces griefs ant AtA soulevBs pour la oremi0re fois devant la Commission le 20 octobre 197 6
-146-
23 . Le 4 septembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u l'ordre d'aller vider son seau . Il s'est dirigÃ© vers la salle d'eau, en passant devant quarante gardiens, mais il a dÃ» s'arrÃ©ter Ã mi-chemin car le gardien B . lui barrait le passage . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare que M . B . s'est dirigÃ© vers lui Ã reculons et l'a bousculÃ©, et que lorsqu'il a essayÃ© d'Ã©viter le gardien, celui-ci l'a suivi et l'a heurtÃ© Ã nouveau . Le requÃ©rant a alors poursuivi son chemin vers les toilettes, mais il a Ã©tÃ© empoignÃ© par derriÃ©re par les gardiens, dont l'un portait le sobriquet de Â« Kung-Fu Â» . Il a Ã©tÃ© jetÃ© dans les bras de tous les autres gardiens qui se sont mis immÃ©diatement Ã lui donner des coups de poing et de pied, pendant qu'on le forÃ§ait Ã regagner sa cellule Ã quatre pattes . Quelqu'un l'avait aussi frappÃ© Ã la figure et son nez saignait . Le requÃ©rant aurait Ã nouveau fait l'objet de bruta6tÃ©s une demi-heure plus tard, alors qu'il Ã©tait sur le point de recevoir son petit dÃ©jeuner . Un gardien a pris une poignÃ©e de flocons de mais et l'a jetÃ©e dans son bol, mais la plupart des flocons sont tombÃ©s par terre . Un autre gardien, M . B ., servait la confiture . Selon le requÃ©rant, il en a pris une cuillerÃ©e et a entrepris de l'en barbouiller . Le requÃ©rant a tentÃ© de se soustraire Ã ce traitement, mais a Ã©tÃ© repoussÃ© vers le gardien B . par d'autres gardiens . Le gardien B . a alors frappÃ© le requÃ©rant Ã la figure avec la cuillÃ©re et le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© attaquÃ© par Â« tous les autres gardiens Â» et jetÃ© Ã terre Ã coups de pied . En outre, le gardien S . s'est mis Ã califourchon sur le dos du requÃ©rant lorsque celui-ci a essayÃ© de ramper vers sa cellule . Il a tentÃ© de se dÃ©barrasser du gardien, mais toutes les fois qu'il s'Ã©croulait, les autres gardiens le bourraient de coups de pied . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare avoir perdu connaissance et ne s'Ãªtre rappelÃ© de cet incident que lorsqu'il s'est rÃ©veillÃ©, couchÃ© Ã mÃªme le sol de sa cellule . D'autres dÃ©tenus auraient subi le mÃªme traitement . AprÃ¨s le petit dÃ©jeuner, le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u l'ordre une nouvelle fois d'aller vider son seau ; Ã peine Ã©tait-il arrivÃ© Ã la moitiÃ© du couloir menant aux toilettes qu'il a Ã©tÃ© jetÃ© Ã terre Ã coups de poing et Ã coups de pied . Les derniÃ©res brutalitÃ©s ont eu lieu, selon le requÃ©rant, Ã 10 heures environ, le mÃªme jour alors qu'on le fit changer de cellule . Un gardien lui a dit qu'il avait Â« cinq secondes pour descendre l'escalier Â» . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend qu'il a dÃ¹ courir entre plus de cent gardiens pour aller de sa cellule jusqu'au bas de l'escalier . A peu prÃ¨s Ã mi-chemin, un gardien M . U . a commencÃ© Ã lui donner des coups de pied . Le requÃ©rant a tentÃ© de faire le tour du gardien, mais quelqu'un l'en a empÃ©chÃ©, et M . U . a continuÃ© Ã lui donner des coups de pied . Il s'est alors mis debout et a continuÃ© de courir . Il dÃ©clare que tout le long du chemin, il a reÃ§u des coups de piedet des coups de poing, et que lorsqu'il est parvenu au bas de l'escalier, un groupe important de gardiens l'a attaquÃ© une nouvelle fois . Puis il a Ã©tÃ© agrippÃ© par M . R ., un gardien chef et on lui a passÃ© les menottes . On l'a obligÃ© Ã se tenir debout, les mains appuyÃ©es contre le mur et les jambes Ã©cartÃ©es . M . R . lui a donnÃ© des coups de poing dans les cÃ´te s
- 147-
en lui disant : Â« Reed, quand tu iras dans le sud, pense au chauffeur de taxi, espÃ©ce de salope Â» . M . S . aurait aussi donnÃ© des coups de pied au requÃ©rant qui Ã©tait Ã terre, et lui aurait dit : Â« Va raconter Ã§a aussi Ã la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme Â» . 24 . Le requÃ©rant a alors Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison de Winchester . II y a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©par un mÃ©decin, auquel il a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il avait fait l'objet de brutaIitAs Ã la prison de Hull, qu'il avait quelques contusions et qu'il Â« avait un peu mal partout Â» . Il dÃ©clare que dans le courant de la mÃªme semaine, un autre mÃ©decirÃ¯ a ordonnÃ© de lui bander la cage thoracique, ce qui fut fait . 25 . Le 14 dÃ©cembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© conduit devant le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons de Hull, qui siÃ©geait Ã Wichester, pour rÃ©pondre de cinq infractions aÃ»rÃ©glement pÃ©nitentiaire pour le rÃ´le qu'il avait jouÃ© dans -la mutinerie de Hull . Il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© coupable et condamnA au total Ã 140 jours de perte de privilÃ¨ges, de confiscation de salaire et d'exclusion des travaux en commun . Le requÃ©rant, et d'autres dÃ©tenus, ont sollicitÃ© de la Â« Divisional Court Â» une ordonnance de certiorari annulant la dÃ©cision du comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons . En dÃ©cembre 1977, ces demandes ont Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©es par cette cour au motif que, vu que le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons siÃ©geant en tant qu'organe disciplinaire fait partie de l'appareil disciplinaire de la prison, il ne peut pas faire l'objet d'un contrÃ´le de la Â« High Court Â» par voie de ceniorari Â» . En appel, toutefois, cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©formÃ©e par la Â« Court of Appeal Â» et l'affaire a Ã©tÃ© renvoyÃ©e devant la Â« Divisional Court Â» . Saisie de l'affaire pour la seconde fois, la Â« Divisional Court Â» a jugÃ© que l'audience du 14 dÃ©cembre 1976, devant le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©quitable, et elle a annulÃ© toutes les constatations relatives Ã la participation du requÃ©rant Ã la mutinerie . 26 . Le requÃ©rant fait valoir de surcroÃ®t que lorsque ses effets personnels sont arrivÃ©s en provenance de la prison de Hull, la plupart d'entre eux faisaient dÃ©faut et que sa iadio et son Ã©lectrophone Ã©taient cassÃ©s . Ses objets personnels Ã©taient en bon Ã©tat lorsqu'il les avait remis Ã un gardien de la prison de Hull en prÃ©sence d'un membre du comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons . Le 4 octobre 1976, il a donc demandÃ© au directeur de la .prison de Winchester la permission de se mettre en rapport avec la police pour dÃ©poser une plainte pour vol d'effets personnels . Mais il lui a Ã©tÃ© dit qu'il devrait adresser une demande (au Ministre) avant de pouvoir signaler une infraction pÃ©nale . Toutefois, comme il avait dÃ©jA une demande en instance, ilne pouvait pas en soumettre une seconde . Le 2 fÃ©vrier 1977, ses solicitorsont dÃ©posÃ© une plainte pour dÃ©gats matÃ©riels auprÃ©s du MinistÃ©re de!l'intÃ©rieur, mais celui-ci n'a fait aucune offre de dÃ©dommagement .
27 . Le Gouvernement dArendeur dÃ©clare que la mutinerie qui a eu lieu A :la prison de Hull entre le 31 aoÃ»t et le 3 octobre 1976 a Ã©tÃ© l'une desiplu s _148_
graves que l'Angleterre et le Pays de Galles aient jamais connues . Des incendies ont Ã©tÃ© allumÃ©s, des ardoises ont Ã©tÃ© arrachÃ©es des toits, des dÃ©gats importants ont AtÃ© causÃ©s aux locaux pÃ©nitentiaires, des portes de cellule ont Ã©tA abattues et des meubles et des accessoires ont AtÃ© br0lÃ©s et cassÃ©s . Une grande partie de la prison a ainsi Ã©tÃ© rendue inhabitable . Comme l'aile B Ã©tait la seule intacte, les dÃ©tenus y ont Ã©tÃ© logÃ©s provisoirement . Le Gouvernement fait aussi remarquer Ã cet Ã©gard que Hull est une prison de formation ,professionnelle destinÃ©e Ã accueillir des dÃ©tenus de longue durAe reconnus :coupables des infractions les plus graves . 28 . Le Gouvernement ajoute que le 2 septembre 1976, une capitulation a Ã©tÃ© nÃ©gociÃ©e avec les dÃ©tenus . Une fois un calme relatif rÃ©tabli dans la prison, certains gardiens se sont entendus pour prendre leur revanche ou .punir les dÃ©tenus qu'ils avaient vu diriger la mutinerie ou y participer . Le ,Gouvernement dÃ©clare qu'ils ont procÃ©dÃ© d'une faÃ§on qui ne peut Ã©tre qualifiÃ©e que de dÃ©plorable . Ils ont maltraitÃ© un nombre important de dÃ©tenus, en les battant, en leur donnant des coups de pied et en les brutalisant . Dans certains cas, les brutalitÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© assez graves, mais heureusement, les blessures infligÃ©es ont Ã©tÃ© lÃ©gÃ©res et relativement peu nombreuses . 29 . Le 28 septembre 1976, le requÃ©rant s'est adressÃ© au Ministre pour lui -dire qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ© par des gardiens de la prison de Hull le 4 septembre . Comme pareilles allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements avaient aussi Ã©tÃ© formulÃ©es par d'autres dÃ©tenus, il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cidÃ© d'inviter l'Inspecteur en chef du Service des prisons Ã faire une enquÃªte . Cette enquÃ©te devait Ãªtre distincte de celle que l'Inspecteur en chef menait d'ores et dÃ©jÃ sur les causes et les circonstances de la mutinerie . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© de cette dÃ©cision le3 septembre 1976 . 30 . Le 5 janvier 1977, le requÃ©rant, alors dÃ©tenu Ã la prison de Winchester, a Ã©crit Ã la police du Hampshire pour dire qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© maltraitÃ© par des gardiens de la prison de Hull le 4 septembre 1976 . La lettre a Ã©tÃ© transmise Ã la police de Humberside, dont le Commissaire a estimÃ© qu'il devait se livrer Ã une enquÃ©te . Comme plusieurs autres allÃ©gations analogues avaient Ã©tÃ© formulÃ©es par des dÃ©tenus de la prison de Hull, il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cidÃ© que la police de Humberside prendrait la suite de l'inspecteur en chef du Service des prisons ence qui concerne l'ensemble des investigations relatives aux allÃ©gations de brutalitÃ©s . L'enquÃªte de l'inspecteur en chef Ã©tait donc terminAe et ses recherches devaient se limiter aux causes et aux circonstances de la mutinerie proprement dite . 31 . A la fin de ses recherches, longues et ardues, la police a Ã©tabli un rapport qui a Ã©tÃ© soumis au Chef du parquet IDirector of Public Prosecutionsl . Sur les instructions de celui-ci, des poursuites pAnales ont Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©es contre douze gardiens pour association dÃ©lictueuse en vue d e - 149 -
brutaliser lÂ« conspirary to assault Â»I des dÃ©tenus de la prison de Hull . L'ancien directeur adjoint de cette prison a Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© d'omissron volontaire d'accomplir son devoir de fonction, pour n'avoir rien fait pour prÃ©venir, stopper ou signaler les brutalitÃ©s commises par des gardiens sur la personne de dÃ©tenus . Les dÃ©fendeurs ont Ã©tÃ© renvoyÃ©s devant la juridiction de jugement le 31 aoÃ»t 1978 . Le procÃ¨s des gardiens a commencÃ© devant la Â« Crown Court Â» de York le 15 janvier 1979 et s'est prolongÃ© sur une pÃ©riode de 53 jours Le Gouvernement fait valoir qu'un et peut-Ãªtre trois des gardiens dont le nom figurait sur l'acte d'accusation ont Ã©tÃ© mentionnÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, Ã savoir le gardien B . et les gardiens chefs D . et S . A l'issue du procÃ©s, deux gardiens chefs ly compris M . D .) ont Ã©tÃ© reconnus coupables d'entente dÃ©lictueuse en vue de commettre des brutalitÃ©s et ont Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ©s Ã neuf mois de prisÃ´n avec deux'ans de sursis ; six autres gardiens ly compris M . S .) ont Ã©tÃ© reconnus coupables et condamnÃ©s Ã des pÃ©riodes allant de quatre Ã six mois de prison avec, dans leur cas aussi, deux ans de sursis . Le Gouvernement souligne que le prÃ©sent requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© l'un de s tÃ©moins de l'accusation au procÃ©s . III . Privation de contacts avec les autres dÃ©tenus et conditions de dÃ©tention Ã la prison de Wincheste r 32 . Le requÃ©rant est arrivÃ© Ã la prison de Winchester le 4 septembre 1976 et y est restÃ© jusqu'au 10 janvier 1977 . 33 . Aux dires du requÃ©rant, le directeur de la prison de Winchester a dÃ©cidÃ© que dans l'intÃ©rÃ©t de l'ordre et de la discipline, le requÃ©rant ne serait pas autorisÃ© Ã frÃ©quenter les autres dÃ©tenus . En consÃ©quence, il a Ã©tÃ© isolÃ© en application de l'article 43 du RÃ©glement pÃ©nitentiaire . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare que bien qu'il y eÃ»t Â« une table et une chaise dans la cellule Â», il n'y avait en guise de lit qu'Â« un socle,en bÃ©ton cimentÃ© dans le sol et surmontÃ© d'un matelas en mousse Â» . Il n'y avait pas de chauffage et il devait s'envelopper dans une couverture pour essayer d'avoir chaud . Il y avait descafards dans sa cellule . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend que ces bÃ©tes ont parfois Ã©tÃ© traitÃ©s avec une sorte de poudre, mais que ces traitements n'ont pas permis d'enrayer leur invasion ; il a dÃ¹ boucher les fissures de sa cellule avec du papier pour tenter d'empÃªcher les bÃªtes d'entrer . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare que cette mÃ©thode n'a pas eu plus de succÃ©s et que l'absence de lit, conjuguÃ© Ã la prÃ©sence des cafards, a rendu bien pires encore ses conditions d'incarcÃ©ration . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend en outre qu'il aÃ©tÃ© enfermÃ© pendant 23 heurÃ© s .34 par jour et qu'il n'a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã se promener seul que pendant un e
_150_
demi-heÃ»re le matin et une demi-heure l'aprÃ©s-midi . Il n'a mÃªme pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã avoir une radio dans sa cellule . 35 . Le 28 septembre 1976, le requÃ©rant s'est plaint de son isolement cellulaire au directeur adjoint . 36 . II dÃ©clare, en outre, que le 28 septembre 1976, dans la soirÃ©e, il a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© du bloc d'isolement de l'aile A Ã celui de l'aile C . Ce devait Ãªtre une mesure provisoire pendant l'installation du nouveau systÃ©me de chauffage . Dans l'aile C, il a Ã©tÃ© Ã nouveau enfermÃ© dans une cellule sans vÃ©ritable lit . Cette cellule ne diffÃ©rait de l'ancienne qu'en ce que le socle du lit Ã©tait en bois et non en bÃ©ton . 37 . Le requÃ©rant se serait fait poner malade le 1 - octobre 1976 . II souhaitait s'entretenir seul Ã seul avec le mÃ©decin de la prison, ce qui n'a pas Ã©tÃ© possible, car celui-ci n'Ã©tait pas autorisÃ© Ã voir les dÃ©tenus seuls . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare qu'il est parvenu Ã dÃ©crire ses symptÃ´mes mineurs au mÃ©decin et que celui-ci lui a posÃ© quelques questions mais ne lui a pas prescrit de traitement . Il dÃ©clare en outre que le 3 octobre 1976, il a Ã©crit Ã son solicitor pour lui demander de le rencontrer de toute urgence, car il Ã©tait prÃ©occupÃ© par les symptÃ´mes de sa maladie et par sa santÃ© mentale, qui souffrait, selon lui, de ses conditions de dÃ©tention . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare qu'il se sentait Â« trÃ©s dÃ©primÃ© Â» et qu'il Â« avait beaucoup de difficultÃ©s Ã dormir la nuit Â» . II Ã©tait Â« constamment sur les nerfs Â» et Â« souffrait des tics faciaux Â» . Le 26 octobre 1976, le mÃ©decin chef de la prison aurait demandÃ© au requÃ©rant s'il allait bien, ce Ã quoi celui-ci aurait rÃ©pondu par l'affirmative, mais en prÃ©cisant qu'il ne s'Ã©tait pas senti bien pendant un mois environ . Comme il ne s'Ã©tait rien passÃ© aprÃ©s qu'il s'Ã©tait fait portÃ© malade le 1 - octobre 1976, le requÃ©rant a jugÃ© inutile de reparler au mÃ©decin de son Ã©tat de santÃ© . 38 . Le 17 octobre 1976, le directeur adjoint de la prison a dit au requÃ©rant qu'Ã compter du jour suivant il serait autorisÃ© Ã prendre de l'exercice avec deux autres dÃ©tenus de la catÃ©gorie A . 39 . Le 28 octobre 1976, il a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© Ã nouveau dans une autre cellule du bloc d'isolement, mais qu'on ne lui a toujours pas donnÃ© un vrai lit . Le 9 novembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© renvoyÃ© vers ce qui semble Ã©tre le bloc d'isolement de l'aile A, ob il a Ã©tÃ© placÃ© dans une Â« cellule forte Â» dÃ©pourvue de vÃ©ritable lit . Le 2 novembre 1976, le requÃ©rant s'est plaint de son isolement cellulair e .40 au comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons . Le comitÃ© a conclu, selon le requÃ©rant, qu'Ã©tant donnÃ© que la mesure d'isolement avait Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ©e parle MinistÃ©re de l'IntÃ©rieur, il ne pouvait rien y changer . Le requÃ©rant a subi environ trois mois d'isolement cellulaire Ã Winchester, soit jusqu'au mois de dÃ©cembre 1976 .
- 151 -
41 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur confirme que lors de l'admission du requÃ©rant Ã Winchester, le 4 septembre 1976, le directeur a dÃ©cidÃ© de le priver de tout contact avec les autres dÃ©tenus . ImmÃ©diatement aprÃ¨s la mutinerie de la prison de Hull, pratiquement tous les 235 dÃ©tenus qui avaient Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ©s dans d'autres Ã©tablissements pÃ©nitentiaires ont Ã©tÃ© isolÃ©s des autres dÃ©tenus . Toutefois, il n'en a pas Ã©tÃ© ainsi Ã la prison de Winchester . Dix-neuf dÃ©tenus ont Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ©s de Hull Ã Winchester aprÃ©s la mutinerie . Trois d'entre eux, dont le requÃ©rant, appartenaient Ã la catÃ©gorie A, autrement dit purgeaient des peines de longue durÃ©e et, dans des circonstances normales, n'auraient jamais Ã©tÃ© placÃ©s Ã Winchester, qui reÃ§oit seulement des dÃ©tenus provisoires et des condamnÃ©s Ã des peines relativement courtes . Selon le Gouvernement, cette prison ne dispose ni du personnel ni des moyens nÃ©cessaires pour recevoir ou former des dÃ©tenus de longue durÃ©e . De surcroÃ®t, Ã l'Ã©poque des faits, en septembre 1976, la prison de Winchester, qui est une ancienne prison, faisait l'objet d'importants travaux de rÃ©novation, qui rÃ©duisaient davantage encore la place disponible et entraÃ®naient un surcroit anormal d'inconfort pour les dÃ©tenus . 42 . Le Gouvernement ajoute que le requÃ©rant avait laissÃ© de mauvais souvenirs dans les diverses prisons oÃ¹ il Ã©tait passÃ© . Il avait Ã©tÃ© puni pour infraction Ã la discipline en cinq occasions et en cinq autres occasions il avait fallu le soumettre au rÃ©gime de l'article 43 pour diverses infractions de caractÃ¨re subversif ou prÃ©tendument telles . 43 . Dans ces circonstances totalement exceptionnelles, le directeur a conclu qu'il Ã©tait Ã la fois nÃ©cessaire et prudent pour le maintien de l'ordre dans la prison de sÃ©parer le requÃ©rant et les deux autres dÃ©tenus de catÃ©gorie A du reste de la collectivitÃ© carcÃ©rale . Cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© prise conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 43, paragraphe 1 du RÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire de 1964' . 44 . II est ainsi exact qu'Ã© compter de la date de son admission dans la prison, le 4 septembre 1976, et jusqu'au 17 octobre 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© sÃ©parÃ© des autres dÃ©tenus, y compris les deux dÃ©tenus de catÃ©gorie A en provenance de Hull . Cela ne veut pas dire toutefois qu'il a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de tout contact humain . Il avait des communications et des contacts frÃ©quents et rÃ©guliers avec les gardiens . Par ailleurs, il Ã©tait autorisÃ© Ã recevoir la visite de parents et d'amis selon la procÃ©dure normale . En outre, il avait accÃ¨s Ã la bibliothÃ©que ; il pouvait fumer, faire des achats Ã la cantine et se procurer de quoi Ã©crire . 45 . A partir du 18 octobre 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã frÃ©quenter les deux autres dÃ©tenus de catÃ©gorie A en provenance de Hull et, Ã partir du 27 octobre 1976, on l'a autorisÃ© Ã aller vider son seau avec eux tous les jours . ' L'article 43 . paragraphe 1 dispose : i Lorsqu'il parait souhaltable pour le maintien de l'ordre ou de la discipline ou daru l'inlÃ©rÃ©t d'un dÃ©tenu, de sÃ©parer celui-ci des autres dÃ©tenus, soit d'une manlpre gÃ©nÃ©rale, soil dans des circonstances particuliÃ©res, le directeur peut faire exclure ce dÃ©tenu de la collec h vitÃ© wrcÃ©rale . . - 152-
46 . S'agissant des conditions dans lesquelles le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu Ã la prison de Winchester, il a Ã©tÃ© notÃ© qu'il avait dÃ©posÃ© onze plaintes pendant qu'il se trouvait dans cette prison, mais qu'aucune d'elles ne contenait des dolÃ©ances au sujet des cafards . Le Gouvernement reconnaÃ®t, d'un autre cbtÃ©, que la prÃ©sence de cafards avaitÃ©tÃ© signalÃ©e aux gardiens de temps Ã autre par diverses personnes . Mais Winchester est une vieille prison . Il Ã©tait inÃ©vitable que ces cafards se logent dans la structure mi'me du bÃ¢timent . Le problÃ©me a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©glÃ© en conservant des stocks d'insecticide dans la prison et en traitant les bÂ®tesdÃ©s qu'elles apparaissent . En outre, le responsable local de la dÃ©sinsectisation est venu rÃ©guliÃ©rement Ã la prison pour faire disparaitre les cafards et empÃªcher leur rÃ©apparition dans la mesure du possible . 47 . En ce qui concerne l'absence de chauffage dans la cellule ob le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu jusqu'au 28 septembre 1976, le Gouvernement reconnait que cette cellule n'Ã©tait pas chauffÃ©e tant que le chauffage central n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© allumÃ© pour l'ensemble de la prison . La date exacte Ã laquelle le chauffage a Ã©tÃ© allumÃ© n'a pas pu Ãªtre Ã©tablie avec prÃ©cision, mais elle s'est situÃ©e, semble-t-il, courant ociobre 1976 . II est Ã noter que pendant l'Ã©tÃ© 1976, l'Angleterre a connu une vague de chaleur exceptionnelle et prolongÃ©e, qui a persistÃ© pendant tout le mois de septembre . De surcroit, le Gouvernement juge Ã©tonnant qu'Ã aucun moment le requÃ©rant ne parait s'i'tre plaint de l'absence de chauffage dans sa cellule - pas plus d'ailleurs que ses co-dÃ©tenus - alors que rien ne permet de supposer que la tempÃ©rature dans sa cellule ait Ã©tÃ© sensiblement diffÃ©rente de celle rÃ©gnant dans les autres . 48 . S'agissant de la cellule dans laquelle le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© placÃ© Ã son arrivÃ©e, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur dÃ©clare qu'elle contenait un lit, mais il confirme que celui-ci se composait seulement d'un socle en bÃ©ton moulÃ© surmontÃ© d'un matelas . Celui-ci Ã©tait en caoutchouc mousse, comme dans toutes les autres cellules . Comme tous les autres dÃ©tenus, le requÃ©rant avait aussi reÃ§u des draps de lit et une taie d'oreiller . 49 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur signale, en dernier lieu, que pour des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ© et de contrÃ´le, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã avoir une radio dans sa cellule pendant le temps ob il a Ã©tÃ© isolÃ© en application de l'article 43 . IV . Traitement subi Ã la prison de Leed s 50 . Le requAranr, qui a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison de Leeds le 10 janvier 1977, se plaint d'y avoir fait l'objet de brimades incessantes de la part des gardiens, qui essayaient de se mettre en travers de son chemin lorsqu'il se promenait . Ces mÃªmes gardiens l'auraient intimidÃ©, provoquÃ© et menacÃ© Ã cause de ses tentatives d'intenter une action en justice aprÃ©s les Ã©vÃ©nements de Hull . Partout oL il allait, son gardien d'escorte le bousculait Â« de faÃ§on continuelle et dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©e Â» . De surcroit, chaque fois qu'il Ã©tait assis sur le siÃ©ge des WC ,
- 153 -
des gardiens le regardaient par-dessus et par-dessous la porte, ce qui le gÃªnait beaucoup . En outre, des gardiens se tenaient contre sa porte Ã l'extÃ©rieur de sa cellule et faisaient des remarques sarcastiques du genre Â« la prochaine fois, on va t'envoyer Ã Broadmoor, comme Ã§Ã , on sera sOr que tu ne sortiras pas Â» . FrÃ©quemment, ils grattaient Ã sa porte en imitant le miaulement du chat . 51 . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare 5"Stre plaint plusieurs fois aux autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires du traitement qui lui Ã©tait infligÃ© et avoir adressÃ© une demande au Ministre, le 16 fÃ©vrier 1977, au sujet de ces mÃ©mes questions . De plus, le 7 mars 1977, il s'est plaint, sans succÃ©s, au comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons, entre autres choses, du traitement dÃ©gradant qui lui Ã©tait infligÃ© Ã la prison de Leeds . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©cise en outre qu'il s'est plaint au commissaire de police A . IChief Superintendent), lo rs que celui-ci l'a interrogÃ© en privÃ© au sujet de l'enquÃªte policiÃ©re sur les brutalitÃ©s dont il avait fail l'objet . Le commissaire de police aurait dÃ©clarÃ© que les conditions de dÃ©tention Ã la prison de Leeds Ã©taient pires que celles dans lesquelles on pouvait garder un animal et que l'ambiance y Ã©tait trÃ¨s hostile tant Ã l'Ã©gard des dÃ©tenus en provenance de la prison de Hull qu'A l'Ã©gard de la police qui menait ses investigations . Le commissaire a aussi dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il avait protestÃ© auprÃ©s du MinistÃ¨re de l'intÃ©rieur, Ã la suite de quoi, pense-t-il, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison de Wakefield, le 17 mars 1977 .52 . LeGouvernementdÃ©(endeursoutientquedanssaplaintedu 16 fÃ©vrier 1977 adressÃ©e au Ministre, le requÃ©rant a prÃ©tendu avoir fait l'objet de manoeuvres d'intimidation et de provocation de la part de gardiens de la prison de Leeds . La plainte contenait plusieurs exemples de man ce uv ies d'intimidation, mais ne prÃ©cisait pas les dates des incidents allÃ©guÃ©s . Selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, le requÃ©rant n'avait nommÃ© aucun des gardiens censÃ©s avoir participÃ© Ã ces incidents . En rÃ©ponse Ã cette plainte, il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© au requÃ©rant, le 29 mars 1977, que s'il voulait se plaindre du traitement qu'il avait subi, il devait fournir tous les dÃ©tails nÃ©cessaires Ã une enquÃ©te approfondie . Il a aussi Ã© tÃ© ave rt i que s'il formulait contre des gardiens des allÃ©gations qui s'avÃ©raient mensongÃ©res ou malveillantes, il s'exposerait Ã des poursuites disciplinaires . Ainsi, selon le Gouvernement, il Ã©tait loisible au requÃ©rant, Ã compter du 29 mars 1977, de se plaindre au comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons ou au Ministre, en fournissant les renseignements supplÃ©mentaires nÃ©cessaires . En outre, le Gouvernement confirme que le requÃ©rant, entre la date Ã laquelle il a prÃ©sentÃ© sa plainte et celle Ã laquelle il a reÃ§u une rÃ©ponse, a soulevÃ© les mÃªmes griefs devant le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons . Selon le Gouvernement, ces deux formes de recours sont considÃ©rÃ©es comme alternatives, et il Ã©tait loisible au comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons de dire au requÃ©rant qu'il n'examinerait pas sa plainte tant qu'il n'aurait pas reÃ§u une rÃ©ponse Ã celle qu'il avait adressÃ©e au Ministre . - 154 _
V . Contacts avec un solicitor au sujet du traitement subi Ã la prison de Hull, en vue d'intenter une action en rÃ©paratio n 53 . Les exposÃ©s du requÃ©rant Ã cet Ã©gard peuvent Ãªtre rÃ©sumÃ©es comme suit . Au dÃ©but de septembre 1976, il a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© par le directeur Ã Ã©crire Ã son solicitor pour obtenir des conseils en vue de la prÃ©paration d'une requÃ©te Ã la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme . Le Ministre l'a confirmÃ© dans une lettre du 30 septembre 1976 adressÃ©e au solicitor du requÃ©rant . 54 . Le 24 septembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u deux lettres de son solicitor datÃ©es du 21 septembre et timbrÃ©es du 22 septembre par le censeur de la prison . II dÃ©clare qu'aucune explication n'a Ã©tÃ© donnÃ©e pour le retard avec lequel il a eu communication des lettres . En outre, une formule d'assistance judiciaire jointe Ã ces lettres ne lui a pas Ã©tÃ© remise . Ce n'est que le 30 septembre 1976 que le directeur adjoint a laissÃ© le requÃ©rant signer la formule et a promis de l'expÃ©dier par la poste avec une lettre d'accompagnement . Dans une des lettres du solicitor, il Ã©tait dÃ©clarÃ© que M . P ., dÃ©putÃ©, avait demandÃ© au solicitor,de dire au requÃ©rant qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© par le MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur Ã s'entretenir avec tout dÃ©tenu ayant des raisons de se plaindre des autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires Ã la suite de la mutinerie de la prison de Hull . M . P . demandait donc au requÃ©rant 1) de lui Ã©crire immÃ©diatement, en lui indiquant la nature de ses griefs et en sollicitant une entrevue personnelle ; 2) d'Ã©tablir et de lui adresser un exposÃ© complet de ses griefs ; et 3) de se mettre en rapport avec le directeur de la prison de Winchester et de demander Ã comparaltre dans le cadre de l'enquÃªte sur la mutinerie de Hull, prÃ©sidÃ©e par l'Inspecteur en chef des prisons . 55 . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare que le 27 septembre 1976, il s'est vu refuser par le directeur la permission de suivre les instructions donnÃ©es par M . P . et s'en est plaint au Ministre le 28 septembre 1976 . II a aussi demandÃ© l'autorisation de charger son solicitor d'intenter une action civile Ã certains gardiens de la prison de Hull et au MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur pour nÃ©gligence et brutalitÃ© s 56 . Le 30 septembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©crit deux lettres Ã son solicitor . Elles auraient Ã© tÃ© interceptÃ©es toutes les deux, de mÃªme qu'une lettre du 27 septembre qui lui Ã©tait adressÃ©e . Cette lettre avait Ã© tÃ© interceptÃ©e parce que le requÃ©rant s'Ã©tait plaint de ce que les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires avaient retardÃ© le dÃ©part et l'arrivÃ©e de sa correspondance avec son solicitor . 57 . Le 5 octobre 1976, le requÃ©rant s'est alors plaint au comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons et a demandÃ© l'autorisation de consulter son solicitor en vue de l'engagement de poursuites judiciaires pour brutalitÃ©s . II dÃ©clare s'Ãªtre heurtÃ© Ã un refus pour la raison qu'il avait dÃ©jÃ une demande en instance . 58 . Le 22 octobre 1976, il a reÃ§u une lettre portant le cachet du censeur Ã la date du 19 septembre 1976 . II s'est plaint le mÃªme jour du retard apportÃ© Ã la distribution de son courrier .
- 155 -
59 . Le 2 novembre 1976, le requÃ©rant s'est plaint une nouvelle fois au comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons des retards subis par son courrier, retards tels qu'il lui Ã©tait pratiquement impossible de communiquer librement avec son solicitor au sujet de l'engagement de poursuites judiciaires . Selon le requÃ©rant, le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons a conclu qu'8 une exception prÃ©s son courrier n'avait pas subi d'ingÃ©rence ou de retard abusifs . 60 . Le 3 novembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©crit une lettre Ã son solicitor . Cette lettre n'a pas Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e, mais elle a Ã©tÃ© transmise au MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur . 61 . Le 3 novembre, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© par le directeur que so nsolictruavÃ©e29octbr176,maisqu'lnÃ©tpdosÃ ui laisser voir cette lettre . Aux dires du requÃ©rant, cettelettre lui a finalement Ã©tÃ© remise le 11 novembre 1976, aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© soumise au MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur . 62 . Le 11 novembre 1976, le requÃ©rant s'est vu remettre deux lettres de son solicitor datÃ©es respectivement du 27 octobre et du 8 novembre 1976 . 63 . Le 18 novembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a Ã©crit une nouvelle fois Ã son solicitor . Selon le requÃ©rant, cette lettre n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© postÃ©e, mais expÃ©diÃ©e au MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur . 64 . Une lettre du 6 fÃ©vrier 1977, adressÃ©e par le requÃ©rant Ã son solicitor, aurait aussi Ã©tÃ© soumise au Service des prisons du MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur . 65 . En septembre et octobre 1976, le solicitor du requÃ©rant a adressÃ© plusieurs lettres concernant le requÃ©rant au Service des prisons du MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur et au directeur de la prison de Winchester . Il souhaitait, notamment, obtenir confirmation de ce que ses lettres parvenaient bien au requÃ©rant, et l'assurance qu'il pourrait le reprÃ©senter lorsque celui-ci comparaitrait dans le cadre de l'enquÃªte de l'inspecteur en chef pour apponer son tÃ©moignage sur la mutinerie de la prison de Hull . Toutefois, le solicitor a Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© par le Ministre que le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã le consulter uniquement au sujet de sa requÃ©te Ã la Commission . Il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã l'Ã©poque Ã consulter son solicitor au sujet de l'engagement de poursuites judiciaires en ce qui concerne des questions relatives Ã la mutinerie de la prison de Hull (lettres du 30 septembre et du 27 octobre 1976) . 66 . En dernier lieu, dans une rÃ©ponse du 29 mars 1977 Ã une demande datÃ©e du 8 mars, le Ministre a informÃ© le requÃ©rant que ses griefs relatifs au traitement qu'il avait subi Ã la prisori de Hull avaient Ã©tÃ© soumis aux fins d'enquÃªte Ã la police de Humberside . Dans l'attente du rÃ©sultat de l'enquÃªte, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã entrer en rapport avec un homme de loi en vue de soumettre ses griefs aux tribunaux dans le cadre d'une action civile contre les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires . De plus, il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã saisir la Â« Divisional Court Â» de la question . Toutefois, il a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã
- 1 56 -
consulter un homme de loi au sujet de la dÃ©cision de ne pas le laisser s'entretenir de cette question avec son solicitor . 67 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur reconnaÃ®t que certaines lettres Ã©changÃ©es entre le requÃ©rant et son solicitor ont Ã©tÃ© retardÃ©es, provisoirement, pendant que le directeur demandait des instructions Ã ses supÃ©rieurs au sujet du courrier du requÃ©rant (par exemple les lettres des 6 et 28 novembre 1976) . Ces instructions ont Ã©tÃ© demandÃ©es parce qu'il apparaissait que le requÃ©rant profitait de ce qu'il pouvait correspondre librement avec son solicitor au sujet de sa requÃªte Ã la Commission, pour lui faire connaÃ®tre les griefs qu'il avait relativement au traitement qu'il subissait en prison, alors que ces griefs n'avaient pas fait l'objet d'une investigation interne . Selon le Gouvernement, le directeur a Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© que tout document ou lettre soumis par le requÃ©rant Ã son solicitor en liaison avec sa requÃªte Ã la Commission devait Ãªtre postÃ© immÃ©diatement . 68 . D'autres lettres du requÃ©rant Ã ses solicitors ont Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©es pour la raison qu'elles faisaient Ã©tat notamment de griefs visant le traitement subi en prison, griefs qui n'avaient pas fait l'objet d'une enquÃªte interne au moment de la rÃ©daction de ces lettres . Une de ces lettres, datÃ©e du 27 septembre 1976, contenait des griefs relatifs Ã la censure de la correspondance du requÃ©rant par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires, et elle a donc Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e . Le Gouvernement dÃ©clare qu'il Ã©tait loisible au requÃ©rant de demander Ã ce moment-19 au Ministre de redresser les abus qu'il dÃ©nonÃ§ait . 69 . Quant Ã la question relative Ã la formule de demande d'assistance judiciaire jointe B la lettre du solicitor du 21 septembre 1976 (cf . par . 54 ci-dessus), le Gouvernement a notÃ© que le 27 septembre 1976, le requÃ©rant s'est entretenu avec le directeur adjoint d'une demande qu'il avait faite en vue, notamment, de prÃ©parer une requÃªte Ã la Commission et de se procurer l'aide et les conseils d'un solicitor Ã cet effet . Dans un premier temps, il a Ã©tÃ© fait droit Ã ces demandes . Mais plus tard dans le cours de l'entrevue, le requÃ©rant a indiquÃ© qu'il n'avait pas l'intention de saisir la Commission, mais qu'il voulait se pourvoir devant les tribunaux internes . Comme le requÃ©rant se refusait Ã dire nettement la solution qu'il comptait adopter, le directeur adjoint a dÃ©clarÃ© s'en tenir Ã ses dÃ©cisions antÃ©rieures, tant que les intentions du requÃ©rant n'auraient pas Ã©tÃ© prÃ©cisÃ©es . Il a aussi Ã©tÃ© expliquÃ© que le requÃ©rant ne serait pas autorisÃ© Ã saisir les tribunaux de la question des brutalitÃ©s tant que sa plainte n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©e selon la procÃ©dure appropriÃ©e . Le requÃ©rant avait une demande en instance concernant cette question qui avait Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e le 28 septembre 1976 . 70 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a fait valoir en dernier lieu Ã ce sujet que le 5 dÃ©cembre 1978, Ã la suite d'un examen de son cas, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© qu'il pouvait correspondre avec ses solicitors au sujet de l'engagement Ã©ventuel d'une procÃ©dure civile pour se plaindre des brutalitÃ©s qu'il avait subies .
- 157 -
VI . IngÃ©rence dans la correspondance faisant Ã©tat de plaintes relatives au traitement et aux conditions de dÃ©tention, mais ne faisant pas allusion Ã l'engagement de pou rsuites judiciaires . 71 . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare que le 3 novembre 1976, il a adressÃ© une lettre Ã son dÃ©putÃ©, M . P ., au sujet des ingÃ©rences dans sa correspondance avec son solicitor . La lettre a Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires . Le 6 novembre, le requÃ©rant s'est plaint de cette mesure au directeur . 72 . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare, en outre, que le 11 novembre 1976, il a Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© qu'il ne serait pas autorisÃ© Ã adresser Ã son solicitor une copie de ses dÃ©clarations Ã l'inspecteur en chef des prisons . Par lettre du 10 novembre 1976, le MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur a informÃ© le solicitor du requÃ©rant qu'il ne lui serait pas possible de s'entretenir avec celui-ci pour l'aider Ã prÃ©parer une dÃ©claration Ã©crite pour l'inspecteur en chef . Puisque toute dÃ©claration faite Ã l'inspecteur durant son enquÃªte Ã©tait destinÃ©e aux besoins de celle-ci, le requÃ©rant ne serait pas autorisÃ© Ã en adresser copie Ã son solicitor (cf . par . 65 ci-dessus) . 73 . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare que le 18 novembre 1976, il a Ã©crit Ã nouveau Ã M . P . au sujet de son isolement cellulaire et des ingÃ©rencesdans sa correspondance avec son solicitor . Cette lettre n'a jamais Ã©tÃ© expÃ©diÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s de la prison . Une lettre adressÃ©e Ã Mme K . a Ã©tÃ© expÃ©diÃ©e au MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur, aux dires du requÃ©rant . 74 . Enfin, sur ce point, il apparait que le 13 dÃ©cembre 1976, M . P . dÃ©putÃ© ~u requÃ©rant, avait Ã©crit au Ministre au sujet du requÃ©rant . Dans ses rÃ©ponses du 25 janvier et du 22 fÃ©vrier 1977, le Ministre a expliquÃ© les rÃ©gles rÃ©gissant la correspondance des dÃ©tenus et les raisons de l'interception de certaines lettres du requÃ©rant . 75 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a d'abord fait valoir que s'agissant de la lettre adressÃ©e Ã Mme K ., rien ne confirmait qu'elle eÃ»t jamais Ã©tÃ© transmise au Service des prisons du MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur comme cela a Ã©tÃ© allÃ©guÃ© . Il ressort en outre du registre local tenu dans les Ã©tablissements pÃ©nitentiaires que le requÃ©rant a Ã©crit une seule fois Ã Mme K ., Ã savoir le 12 novembre 1976, et il est notÃ© que cette lettre a Ã©tÃ© expÃ©diÃ©e . 76 . Le Gouvernement reconnatt, d'un autre c6tÃ©, que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã envoyer Ã son solicitor une copie de la dÃ©claration Ã©crite qu'il avait rÃ©digÃ©e Ã l'intention de l'inspecteur en chef du Service des prisons (cf . lettre NÂ° 5, par . 821, et que son solicitor en avait Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© (cf . par . 72) . 77 . Le Gouvernement souligne ensuite qu'Ã© aucun moment M . P . ne s'est vu accorder des facilitÃ©s particuliÃ©res pour communiquer avec les dÃ©tenus qui avÃ¢ient formulÃ© des griefs Ã la suite de la mutinerie de Hull ou leur rendre visite . Quant aux Ã©changes de correspondance avec M . P ., la rÃ©gle de l'examen prÃ©alable, qui s'applique aux dÃ©putÃ©s en rÃ©gle gÃ©nÃ©rale, s'appliquai t
-158-
aussi Ã lui . Ainsi, la lettre du requÃ©rant du 2 novembre 1976 (3 novembre, dit le requÃ©rantl adressÃ©e Ã M . P . a Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e, parce que, tout d'abord, elle faisait rÃ©fÃ©rence au souhait du requÃ©rant d'engager des poursuites pour brutalitÃ©s contre des gardiens, alors mÃ©me qu'il avait soumis une demande Ã ce sujet et qu'il attendait une rÃ©ponse . En second lieu, la lettre contenait de nombreuses plaintes faisant Ã©tat d'ingÃ©rences dans sa correspondance avec son solicitor . Le reqÃ»Ã©rant avait soutenu que ces dolÃ©ances avaient Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©es devant le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons le 2 novembre 1976 et que ce comitÃ© avait constatÃ© que son courrier avait subi des ingÃ©rences ou des retards abusifs, sauf dans un seul cas . Toutefois, selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, le compte rendu de l'examen de la requÃªte par le comitÃ© rÃ©vÃ©le que celui-ci n'a pas jugÃ© utile de se prononcer de maniÃ©re dÃ©finitive sur ces griefs tant que le Service des prisons n'aurait pas eu la possibilitÃ© d'examiner les questions soulevÃ©es par les lettres qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© soumises . En dÃ©cembre 1976, le Service des prisons a conseillÃ© de poster sans renvoi pour examen prÃ©alable toute lettre du requÃ©rant Ã ses solicitors relative Ã sa requÃªte Ã la Commission . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient enfin qu'il n'est pas exact que la lettre du 18 novembre 1976 adressÃ©e Ã M . P . ait Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e . Il rappelle que la lettre a Ã©tÃ© soumise au directeur le 19 novembre, puis expÃ©diÃ©e par la poste Ã M . P . le 1^â¢ dÃ©cembre 1976
GRIEFS 78 . En ce qui concerne la Parrie / de sa requÃªte, le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue une violation de l'article 6 de la Convention, en ce que, par suite des mancouvres d'obstruction des autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires, il s'est trouvÃ© empÃ©chÃ© de consulter son solicitor et d'avoir accÃ©s Ã un avocat . En outre, il allÃ©gue une violation de l'article 8 de la Convention en raison des ingÃ©rences suivantes dans sa correspondance : 1 . L'interception de la lettre client/solicitor du 20 janvier 1976
2 . L'interception de sa lettre du 17 fÃ©vrier 1976 adressÃ©e Ã M . L ., dÃ©putÃ© 3 . L'interception, en mars 1976, de sa seconde lettre Ã M . L . 79 . En ce qui concerne la Partie Il de la requÃ©te, le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue en premier lieu que les Ã©vÃ©nements suivants survenus Ã la prison de Hull constituent une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention : 1 . les brutalitÃ©s perpÃ©trÃ©es par un gardien chef au petit matin du 4 septembre 1976 ;
2 . les brutalitÃ©s commises par le gardien D . plus tard dans la matinÃ©e de ce mÃªme jour ; 3 . les brutalitÃ©s commises par un gardien dont le nom est inconnu, plus tard dans la mÃªme matinÃ©e ;
- 159 -
4 . le traitement inhumain et dÃ©gradant infligÃ© par les gardiens B . et S . dans la matinÃ©e de ce mÃªme jour . les brutalitÃ©s commises par certains gardiens au moment du vidag e ;5 des seaux pendant la matinÃ©e de ce mÃªme jour ; 6 . les brutalitÃ©s commises Ã 10 h du matin environ par le gardien U . et certains de ses collÃ©gues, pendant le transfert vers une autre prison ; 7 . les brutalitÃ©s commises par le gardien-chef R . au moment oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a quittÃ© la prison de Hull pour une autre prison . 80 . En ce qui concerne la Partie lIl de la requÃ©te, le requÃ©rant se plaint en outre de l'isolement qui lui a Ã©tÃ© imposÃ© en vertu de l'article 43 Ã la prison de Winchester ainsi que des conditions dans lesquelles il a Ã©tÃ© isolÃ© . 81 . En ce qui concerne la Panie IV de la requÃªte, le requÃ©rant fait valoir que les brimades, manceuvres d'intimidation et, etc . . . auxquelles il a Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã la prison de Leeds constituent une violation de l'article 3 dÃ© la Convention . 82 . S'agissant des Parties V et VI de la requÃªte, le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue une violation de l'article 6 de la Convention . Il dÃ©clare Ã cet Ã©gard qu'on lui a constamment dÃ©niÃ© le droit Ã l'assistance et au ministÃ©re d'un homme de loi pour la prÃ©paration de ses rapports destinÃ©s Ã l'inspecteur en chef des prisons, l'Ã©tablissement de sa demande au MinistÃ©re de l'intÃ©rieur, et la dÃ©fense de sa cause devant les tribunaux anglais . Ses efforts pour intenter une procÃ©dure civile ont Ã©tÃ© infructueux . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue une violation de l'article 8, en ce que sa correspondance a Ã©tÃ© abusivement interceptÃ©e dans les conditions suivantes :
1 . ingÃ©rence dans la correspondance solicitor/client le 27 septembre 1976 ; 2 . censure et interception d'une lettre client/solicitor du 27 septembre 1976 ; 3 . censure et interception de deux lettres client/solicitor du 30 septembre 1976 . censure et;4 interception d'une lettre du requÃ©rant Ã son dÃ©putÃ© datÃ© e du 3 novembre 1976 ; 5 . censure et interception d'une dÃ©claration faite par le requÃ©rant Ã l'intention de son solicitor, datÃ©e du 11 novembre 1976 ;
6 . censure et interception de deux lettres adressÃ©es par le requÃ©rant Ã son dÃ©putÃ© et Ã un ami personnel respectivement, toutes deux interceptÃ©es le 21 novembre 1976 ; 7 non-expÃ©dition d'une lettre client/solicitor du 3 novembre 1976 et menace de la censurer et de l'intercepter ;
- 160 _
8 . non-expÃ©dition et retard apportÃ© dans l'acheminement de deux lettres client/solicitor du 28 novembre et du 2 dÃ©cembre 1976 ; 9 . ingÃ©rence gÃ©nÃ©rale dans la correspondance solicitor/client et retard apportÃ© dans l'acheminement de cette correspondance, tout au long de la pÃ©riode, cette ingÃ©rence Ã©tant injustifiÃ©e . 83 . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare avoir fait tout ce qu'on pouvait raisonnablement attendre de lui pour Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes Ã sa disposition . Il demande Ã la Commission de dire, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 13 de la Convention, qu'il a droit Ã l'octroi d'un recours effectif devant une instance nationale, alors mÃªme que les violations incriminÃ©es auraient Ã©tÃ© commises par des personnes agissant dans l'exercice de leurs fonctions officielles . 84 . Le requÃ©rant soutient Ã©galement que si sa demande visant Ã obtenir une ordonnance de certiorari devait en fin de compte Ã¨tre rejetÃ©e, la procÃ©dure du comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons constituerait, selon lui, une violation manifeste de l'article 6 de la Convention . Toutefois, la dÃ©cision de ce comitÃ© a Ã©tÃ© annulÃ©e par la Â« Divisional Court Â» (voir paragraphe 25 ci-dessus) et, lors de l'audience devant la Commission, il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© au nom du requÃ©rant que ce grief Ã©tait abandonnÃ© .
EN DROI T
BrutalitÃ©s commises Ã la prison de Hull en septembre 1976 - article 3 1 Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ© Ã plusieurs reprises Ã la prison de Hull le 4 septembre 1976 . II estime que ces brutalitÃ©s constituent une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention, qui dispose que Â« nul ne peut Ãªtre soumis Ã la torture ni Ã des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants Â» . 2 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur ne conteste pas la version des Ã©vÃ©nements incriminÃ©s prÃ©sentÃ©e par le requÃ©rant, mais il fait valoir que cette partie de la requÃ©te est irrecevable pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes car le requÃ©rant n'a pas intentÃ© une action civile en rÃ©paration aux gardiens responsables des brutalitÃ©s . 3 . Selon l'article 26 de la Convention, Â« la Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ©s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . . . Â» . Il n'est pas contestÃ© entre les parties qu'une action civile en rÃ©paration est, en principe, un recours susceptible de fournir une rÃ©paration adÃ©quate et suffisante en ce qui concerne les griefs du requÃ©rant . La Commission, suivant en cela ses prÃ©cÃ©dentes dÃ©cisions dans des affaires similaires, considÃ©re que pareille action est une voie de recours que, dans des circonstances normales ,
- 161 -
le requÃ©rant est obligÃ© d'Ã©puiser avant qu'elle ne puisse Ãªtre saisie de son cas (cf . par exemple RequÃªtes NÂ° 5577-5587/72, Donnelly et autres c/RoyaumeUni, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 4, p . 4, et la RequPte NÂ° 7819/77, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 14, p . 186) . 4 . Dans la prÃ©sente affaire, la Commission se droit nÃ©anmoins de rechercher s'il existe des circonstances particuliÃ©res qui, conformÃ©ment aux principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus, dispensent le requÃ©rant de l'obligation d'Ã©puiser cette voie de recours, Ã©tant donnÃ© qu'Ã© la date Ã laquelle il a soulevÃ© pour la premiÃ¨re fois le prÃ©sent grief devant la Commission (20 octobre 1976), et pendant plus de deux annÃ©es aprÃ©s, il n'a pas pu consulter son solicitor au sujet des brutalitÃ©s subies . En vertu de la circulaire 45/1975, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait tenu, en premier lieu, d'exposer aux autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires ses griefs relatifs au traitement subi Ã la prison de Hull, de telle sorte qu'ils puissent faire l'objet d'une enquÃªte interne . Aucune facilitÃ© ne pouvait Ãªtre accordÃ©e pour l'engagement d'une procÃ©dure civile tant que lesautoritÃ©s n'avaient pas enquÃ¨tÃ© sur les faits . 5 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur confirme qu'entre septembre 1976 et le 5 septembre 1978, le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã consulter son solicitor en vue de l'engagement d'une action civile en rÃ©paration . Il reconnait, toutefois, qu'Ã partir de mars 1977, la rÃ¨gle de la prioritÃ© de l'enquÃªte interne a Ã©tÃ© mal appliquÃ©e en l'espÃ©ce et qu'elle n'aurait pas dÃ» Ptre Ã©tendue aux procÃ©dures pÃ©nales contre les gardiens . Il estime, nÃ©anmoins que, le requÃ©rant Ã©tant maintenant Ã mÃ¨me d'intenter action contre les gardiens, il devrait le faire car il n'existe aucune raison de prÃ©tendre que le recours reprÃ©sentÃ© par une action civile a Ã©tÃ© rendu inefficace du fait du retard de 27 mois . 6 . Le requÃ©rant a donc Ã©tÃ© placÃ© dans une situation telle que pour avoir accÃ©s Ã un recours efficace et adÃ©quat, il devait, en premier lieu, se soumettre prÃ©alablement Ã une procÃ©dure interne distincte et, en second lieu, attendre le rÃ©sultat des poursuites publiques, deux procÃ©dures qui dans les circonsiances de la prÃ©sente affaire, ne constituent pas en elles-m8mes des Â« voies de recours internes Â» au sens de l'article 26 . 7 . II est rappelÃ© qu'une situation semblable s'est prÃ©sentÃ©e dans l'affaire Campbell (voir la RequÃªte NÂ°7819/771 dÃ©jÃ citÃ©el . Ce requÃ©rant, qui se plaignait lui aussi d'avoir Ã©tÃ© maltraitÃ© par des gardiens de prison, s'Ã©tait vu refuser pendant treize mois environ l'autorisation de consulter un homme de loi en vue d'intenter action contre les gardiens . Dans sa dÃ©cision, la Commission a relevÃ© que si le requÃ©rant s'Ã©tait montrÃ© coopÃ©ratif lors de la procÃ©dure d'enquÃªte interne, les restrictions imposÃ©es Ã son accÃ©s aux tribunaux auraient Ã©tÃ© levÃ©es quatre ou cinq mois aprÃ¨s l'incident incriminÃ© . Selon la Commission, le requÃ©rant n'avait pas montrÃ© que la procÃ©dure d'enquÃªte interne prÃ©alable privait l'action civile en rÃ©paration de chances raisonnables de succÃ¨s et qu'elle la rendait par lÃ -mÃ«me ineffective .
- 162 -
B . La Commission considÃ©re qu'en dÃ©pit de leurs ressemblances, il existe des diffÃ©rences importantes entre la prÃ©sente affaire et celle de M . Campbell . Ainsi, le retard avec lequel l'autorisation de consulter un homme de loi a Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©e est beaucoup plus important dans la prÃ©sente affaire . Autre Ã©lÃ©ment particuliÃ©rement pertinent : si M . Campbell avail coopÃ©rÃ© Ã l'enquÃªte interne, il aurail pu se mettre en rapport avec un homme de loi quatre ou cinq mois aprÃ¨s les brutalitÃ©s allÃ©guÃ©es . La voie de l'action civile en rÃ©paration lui aurait ainsi Ã©tÃ© ouverte au moment oli, pour la premiÃ©re fois, il a formulÃ© ses griefs devant la Commission . Dans la prÃ©sente affaire, en revanche, le requÃ©rant s'est trouvÃ© emp8chÃ© sans aucune faute de sa part d'exercer ce recours pendant 25 ou 26 mois Ã compter du 20 octobre 1976, date oÃ¹ il a introduit ses griefs relatifs aux brutalitÃ©s . 9 . La Commission juge d'une importance fondamentale que lorsqu'il existe un recours pour une prÃ©tendue violation de la Convention, celui-ci soit en principe immÃ©diatement disponible pour toute personne se prÃ©tendant lÃ©sÃ©e, en particulier dans les cas oÃ¹ de mauvais traitements sont allÃ©guÃ©s . La Commission peut nÃ©anmoins accepter qu'une pÃ©riode dÃ© temps limitÃ©e s'Ã©coule dans une affaire comme la prÃ©sente, oÃ¹ les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires souhaitent mener une enquÃ©te interne sur les allÃ©gations, avant d'autoriser le plaignant Ã consulter un homme de loi . Mais il faut insister sur le fait que pareille enquÃªte, pour justifiable qu'elle soit, ne doit pas nuire Ã l'immÃ©diatetÃ© et Ã l'efficacitÃ© d'une action civile en rÃ©paration . 10 De l'avis de la Commission, on ne saurait tenir pour raisonnable, dans le contexte de l'article 26, le fait de refuser pendant 27 mois Ã la victime d'un traitement prÃ©tendument contraire Ã l'article 3, l'accÃ©s Ã l'unique recours susceptible de lui offrir une rÃ©paration immÃ©diate, adÃ©quate et suffisante . Oue le requÃ©rant soit en mesure d'intenter une action civile Ã l'Ã©poque oÃ¹ la Commission se prononce sur la recevabilitÃ© de sa requÃªte n'est pas dÃ©cisif pour l'application de l'article 26 . Etant donnÃ© que le requÃ©rant n'a pas pu exercer une action civile en rÃ©paration dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable aprÃ©s l'incident survenu Ã la prison de Hull, on ne saurait opposer Ã cette partie de sa requÃªte Ã la Commission une fin de non-recevoir tirÃ©e de la rÃ©gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes Ã©noncÃ©e Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . 11 . II s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte ne peut Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour nonÃ©puisement des voies de recours internes au sens des articles 26 et 27, paragraphe 3, de la Conventio n 12 Le requÃ©rant a fait valoir que les brutalitÃ©s exercÃ©es sur sa personne Ã la prison de Hull ont constituÃ© une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur n'a ni confirmÃ© ni contestÃ© la version de ces brutalitÃ©s donnÃ©e par le requÃ©rant . Mais il a reconnu qu'Ã la suite de la mutinerie, certains gardiens ont maltraitÃ© un nombre apprÃ©ciable de dÃ©tenus, en leur donnant des coups de pied et des coups de poing et en les brutalisant .
- 1 63 -
13 . AprÃ©s avoir examinÃ© les renseignements et les arguments prÃ©sentÃ©s par les parties, la Commission juge que cet aspect de l'affaire soulÃ¨ve d'importantes questions d'interprÃ©tation de la Convention et qu'il est d'une complexitÃ© telle qu'il ne saurait Ãªtre statuÃ© Ã son sujet que dans le cadre d'un examen au fond . 14 . Aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli, cette partie de la requÃªte doit donc Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable . Il .
Privation de contacts avec les autres dÃ©tenus et conditions de la dÃ©tention Ã la prison de Winchester - article 3
15 Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir subi environ douze semaines d'isolement cellulaire Ã la prison de Winchester ; il se plaint Ã©galement des conditions de dÃ©tention en cellule .16 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que ces griefs sont manifestement mal fondÃ©s sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention . Subsidiairement il soutient que le grief relatif Ã l'Ã©tat des cellules est irrecevable pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, le requÃ©rant n'ayant soulevÃ© ni devant le directeur ni devant le ComitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons la questidn de l'absence de chauffage ou celle des conditions de couchage dans sa cellule . 17 . Comme elle l'a dÃ©jA rappelÃ©, la Commission Â« ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus n . 18 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue qu'il s'est plaint de son isolement au MinistÃ©re de l'IntÃ©rieur le 28 septembre 1976, et au ComitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons le 2 novembre 1976 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur n'a pas fait d'observations au sujet de la demande adressÃ©e au Ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur . Selon lui, toutefois, il ne ressort pas des registres du ComitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons que le requÃ©rant se soit plaint de son isolement avant le 7 septembre 1976 . 19 . La Commission est convaincue, en premier lieu, que dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© isolÃ© en application de l'article 43 du RÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire, il doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme ayant rempli les conditions Ã©noncÃ©es Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . Quant aux conditions de vie en cellule, la question se pose de savoir si le requÃ©rant aurait dÃ» aussi en soulever chacun des divers aspects devant les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires compÃ©tentes . Toutefois, la Commission ne juge pas nÃ©cessaire d'examiner plus avant cette question en l'espÃ©ce car ces griefs doivent Ãªtre rejetÃ©s pour les raisons exposÃ©es ci-aprÃ© s 20 . La Commission a recherchÃ©, en second lieu, si les conditions de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant Ã la prison de Winchester rÃ©vÃ©lent Ã premiÃ¨re vue l'existence d'une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention ._164
21 . La Commission souligne tout d'abord que l'exclusion d'un dÃ©tenu de la collectivitÃ© carcÃ©rale ne constitue pas en soi une forme de traitement inhumain ou dÃ©gradant (voir, par exemple, les RequÃªtes NÂ° 7572/76, 7586/76 et 7587/76, Ensslin, Baader, Raspe c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 14, p . 64) . Elle considÃ¨re, nÃ©anmoins, qu'un isolement cellulaire prolongÃ© n'est pas souhaitable, principalement dans le cas d'un dÃ©tenu provisoire mais aussi dans le cas d'une personne dÃ©tenue aprÃ©s condamnation rÃ©guliÃ©re . Un isolement cellulaire prolongÃ© peut donc, dans certaines circonstances, faire naÃ®tre un problÃ©me notamment sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Convention . 22 . La Commission a donc recherchÃ© si l'isolement cellulaire auquel le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© soumis pendant environ douze semaines prÃ©sente un degrÃ© de duretÃ© du genre de ce qu'envisage l'article 3 de la Convention . Il ressort tout d'abord des observations des deux parties qu'entre le 4 septembre 1976 et le 17 octobre 1976, le requÃ©rant n'a eu aucun contact avec les autres dÃ©tenus, mais seulement avec les gardiens . A partir du 18 octobre 1976, il a pu prendre de l'exercice pendant une heure par jour avec les deux autres dÃ©tenus de catÃ©gorie A en provenance de Hull, et Ã compter du 27 octobre 1976, il lui a aussi Ã©tÃ© permis d'aller vider son seau en leur compagnie . La Commission ignore jusqu'Ã quel point le requÃ©rant a reÃ§u la visite de membres de sa famille et d'amis pendant le temps oÃ¹ il s'est trouvÃ© sous le rÃ©gime de l'article 43 Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a affirmÃ© que le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã recevoir de telles visites de la faÃ§on normale, ce qui n'a pas Ã©tÃ© contestÃ© par lui . La Commission relÃ¨ve d'un autre cOtÃ© que le requÃ©rant a allÃ©guÃ©, entre autres choses, que par suite de son isolement cellulaire, il s'Ã©tait senti Â« trÃ¨s dÃ©primÃ© Â», il Â« avait eu beaucoup de difficultÃ©s Ã dormir la nuit Â» et souffert Â« de tics faciaux Â» . La Commission note que le requÃ©rant n'a pas prÃ©sentÃ© de certificats mÃ©dicaux indiquant que l'isolement aurait eu des consÃ©quences prÃ©judicielles pour sa santÃ© psychique ou physique . Il dÃ©clare, nÃ©anmoins, avoir fait Ã©tat de Â« symptÃ´mes mineurs n devant un mÃ©decin le 1^ 1 octobre 1976, mais que ce mÃ©decin ne lui aurait prescrit aucun traitement . A ce moment, le requÃ©rant se trouvait Ã l'isolement depuis prÃ©s d'un mois . Sans nÃ©gliger le fait que mÃªme un isolement relativement court peut avoir des effets nÃ©gatifs sur la santÃ© d'un individu, la Commission estime nÃ©anmoins qu'on pouvait raisonnablement attendre du requÃ©rant qu'il consulte, une nouvelle fois, le mÃ©decin de la prison, si ses difficultÃ©s avaient Ã©tÃ© aussi graves qu'il le prÃ©tend . 23 . C'est assurÃ©ment une mesure grave que de couper un dÃ©tenu de tout ou pratiquement tout contact avec la collectivitÃ© carcÃ©rale normale pendant une longue pÃ©riode . Toutefois, aprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© toutes les circonstances particuliÃ¨res de l'espÃ©ce, la Commission estime que rien n'indique que l'isolement proprement dit ait Ã©tÃ© sÃ©vÃ©re au point de constituer un traitement inhumain ou dÃ©gradant, au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention .
- 165 -
24 . La Commission a examinÃ© ensuite les autres griefs du requÃ©rant concernant les conditions de sa dÃ©tention cellulaire . 25 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a reconnu que dans la cellule oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu pendant les trois premiÃ©res semaines de son sÃ©jour Ã Winchester, il y avait des cafards et que les conditions de couchage n'Ã©taient pas aussi confortables qu'elles auraient pu l'Ã©tre . 26 . II est donc exact, semble-t-il, que les conditions matÃ©rielles rÃ©gnant dans la cellule oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu pendant une certaine pÃ©riode n'atteignaient pas la norme souhaitable . Toutefois, la Commission juge important de relever Ã cet Ã©gard que, selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, la prison de Winchester est une vieille prison qui, au moment des faits, subissait des rÃ©parations et des travaux de rÃ©novation importants, qui contribuaient Ã rÃ©duire encore la place disponible et entraÃ®naient un surcroit anormal d'inconfort pour les dÃ©tenus . Enfin, la Commission relÃ¨ve Ã ce propos que rien n'indique qu'il ne faisait pas assez chaud dans la cellule oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant a sÃ©journÃ© en septembre . 27 . Eu Ã©gard Ã toutes ces considÃ©rations et compte tenu qu'un certain nombre de dÃ©tenus ont Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ©s de Hull Ã Winchester, la Commission trouve comprÃ©hensible que l'administration pÃ©nitentiaire ait rencontrÃ© des difficultÃ©s pour loger correctement les dÃ©tenus . A la lumiÃ©re des circonstances particuliÃ¨res de la prÃ©sente affaire, la Commission conclut que les conditions de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant ne rÃ©vÃ©lent pas l'apparence d'une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . 28 . En dernier lieu, la Commission estime que cette conclusion vaut Ã©galement pour la situation globale de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant Ã la prison de Winchester . II s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e , .29 au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . III . Traitement subi Ã la prison de Leeds - a rticle 3 30 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint ensuite que le traitement qu'il a subi Ã la prison de Leeds a constituÃ© une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention .
31 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a prÃ©tendu que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 26 de la Convention, en ce qu'il a omis de fournir des prÃ©cisions complÃ©mentaires sur ses griefs au ComitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons ou au Ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur, bien qu'il ait Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã le faire dans la rÃ©ponse du Ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur du 29 mars 1977 Ã sa demande du 16 fÃ©vrier 1977 . 32 . II est exact que le requÃ©rant n'a jamais prÃ©cisÃ© ses griefs comme le MinistÃ©re de l'IntÃ©rieur l'y avait invitÃ© . La Commission relÃ©ve toutefois que le 7 mars 1977, soit aprÃ¨s qu'il eut formulÃ© sa plainte au Ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur ,
_1 66 -
mais avant qu'il eÃ»t reÃ§u la rÃ©ponse de ce dernier, le requÃ©rant s'est plaint sans succÃ¨s de brimades auprÃ¨s du ComitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons . La question se pose dÃ¨s lors de savoir s'il a rempli les conditions de l'article 26 en formulant ses griefs tant devant le MinistÃ¨re de l'IntÃ©rieur que devant le ComitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons ou si, Ã cet effet, il aurait dÃ» en outre fournir des dÃ©tails supplÃ©mentaires Ã l'une ou Ã l'autre de ces instances, comme il avait Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã le faire par le Ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur dans sa rÃ©ponse du 29 mars 1977 . La Commission considÃ©re toutefois que cette question peut Ãªtre laissÃ©e indÃ©cise en l'espÃ¨ce car, mÃªme Ã supposer que l'article 26 ait Ã©tÃ© obse rv Ã©, cette partie de la requÃªte doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e pour les raisons exposÃ©es ci-aprÃ¨s . 33 . La Cornmission a recherchÃ© si les brimades auxquelles le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend avoir Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã la prison de Leeds rÃ©vÃ©lent Ã premiÃ¨re vue une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . Elle ne considÃ©re pas que le traitement incriminÃ© pouvait Ã© quivaloir Ã la torture ou Ã un traitement inhumain . En consÃ©quence, la question est de savoir s'il existe des indices que les brimades allÃ©guÃ©es ont Ã©tÃ© graves au point de constituer un Â« traitement dÃ©gradant Â», au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention . La Commission rappelle Ã cet Ã© gard que pour qu'un traitement soit Â« dÃ©gradant u et contraire Ã l'article 3, l'humiliation et l'avilissement dont il s'accompagne doivent se situer Ã un niveau particulier Ivoir par exemple, par analogie, Cour EuropÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, affaire Tyrer, arrÃªt du 25 avril 1978, paragraphe 301 . Le requÃ©rant affirme que les gardiens l'ont intimidÃ©, provoquÃ© et 34 menacÃ© de diverses maniÃ©res dÃ©crites au paragraphe 50 ci-dessus . Toutefois, il n'a pas dÃ©signÃ© les gardiens responsables de ces brimades, ni indiquÃ© les dates prÃ©cises auxquelles ces actes auraient Ã© tÃ© commis, bien qu'il ait fourni de tels renseignements Ã propos d'autres griefs . D'un autre cAtÃ©, le Gouvernement n'a pas formulÃ© d'obse rv ations au sujet des faits visÃ©s par les allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant, ses arguments n'ayant portÃ© que sur la question de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . La Commission estime tout d'abord qu'il y a lieu de se prÃ©occuper de la 35 maniÃ©re dont le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare avoir Ã© tÃ© traitÃ© par des gardiens de la prison de Leeds . Il est exact que ses allÃ©gations Ã ce sujet n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© admises par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, mais la Commission ne dÃ©couvre rien qui inclinerait Ã penser que les dÃ©clarations du requÃ©rant ne seraient pas dignes de confiance . Toutefois, Ã supposer que ces dÃ©clarations correspondent Ã la vÃ©ritÃ©, la Commission estime, aprÃ©s avoir examinÃ© les faits tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, que le traitement auquel il a Ã©tÃ© soumis, pour critiquable qu'il soit, n'atteint pas le degrÃ© de sÃ©vÃ©ritÃ©correspondant Ã la notion de Â« traitement dÃ©gradant Â» selon l'a rt icle 3 de la Convention .
36 . II s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃ©te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . de la Convention . - 167-
IV . Contacts avec un solicitor et un dÃ©putÃ© - Art icles 6 et 8 a . AccÃ¨s Ã un tribunal en vue d'intenter une action civile en diftamafion 37 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint tout d'abord du refus de le laisser se mettre en rapport avec un solicitor en vue d'intenter un procÃ¨s en diffamation Ã un gardien, Ã la suite d'un incident survenu Ã la prison de Hull le 14 janvier 1976 . Dans ce cas, les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires ont interceptÃ© les lettres adressÃ©es par le requÃ©rant Ã son solicitor et Ã son dÃ©putÃ© . Le requÃ©rant allÃ©gue une violation de l'article 6 dans la mesure oÃ¹ il s'est vu interdire tout contact avec son solicitor et une violation de l'article 8 dans la mesure oÃ¹ il y a eu ingÃ©rence dans sa correspondanc e 38 . La Commission rappelle que dans l'arrÃ¨t qu'elle a rendu dans l'affaire Golder, la Cour a jugÃ© que l'article 6 de la Convention garantit Ã chacun Â« le droit Ã ce qu'un tribunal connaisse de toute contestation relative Ã ses droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil (voir Cour eur . D .H ., SÃ©rie A, NÂ° 18, par . 36) . Elle a aussi jugÃ© qu'Â« une entrave Ã l'exercice efficace d'un droit peut porter atteinte Ã ce droit, mÃªme si elle revÃªt un caractÃ¨re temporaire Â» (ibid . par . 26) . Elle a dÃ©clarÃ© en outre que le droit d'accÃ©s aux tribunaux n'est Â« pas absolu Â», mais qu'il y a place pour des limitations implicitement admises libid . par . 381 . Elle a aussi indiquÃ©, en se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã sa jurisprudence dans l'affaire linguistique belge, que de telles limitations ne doivent pas entraÃ®ner d'atteinte Ã la substance de ce droit (ibid . par . 38) . 39 . Ouant Ã l'article 8 de la Convention, il dispose dans son premier paragraphe, notamment, que Â« toute personne a droit au restect . . . de sa correspondance . . . Il ne peut y avoir ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour les motifs Ã©noncÃ©s au second paragraphe de l'article 8, ainsi libellÃ© : Â« Il ne peut y avoir ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, est nÃ©cessaire Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã la sOretÃ© publique, au bien-Ãªtre Ã©conomique du pays, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale, Ã la protection des droits et libertÃ©s d'autrui . Â» 40 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que le requÃ©rant est seul responsable du retard avec lequel il a pu se mettre en rapport avec son solicitor . Selon le Gouvernement, le retard incriminÃ© n'a, quoi qu'il en soit, nullement portÃ© atteinte Ã la substance du droit du requÃ©rant protÃ©gÃ© par l'article 6 . En ce qui concerne l'article 8, il fait valoir que l'interception des lettres adressÃ©es Ã l'homme de loi et au dÃ©putÃ© ont constituÃ© dans la correspondance du requÃ©rant une ingÃ©rence qui Ã©tait justifiÃ©e pour les motifs admis par l'article 8 , paragraphe 2 de la Convention . Cette partie de la requÃªte devrait donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e manifestement mal fondÃ©e . _168_
41 . AprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© les arguments des parties Ã la lumiÃ©re de la jurisprudence susmentionnÃ©e de la Cour, la Commission considÃ©re que cette partie de la requÃªte soulÃ©ve d'importantes questions d'interprÃ©tation de la Convention et dont la complexitÃ© est telle que leur solution exige un examen au fond . En particulier, la question se pose de savoir si un retard de deux mois, ou Ã©ventuellement moins, pour accorder au requÃ©rant les facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires pour soumettre son affaire aux tribunaux est compatible avec l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã correspondre avec son solicitor et son dÃ©putÃ©, des questions importantes et complexes se posent aussi sur le terrain de l'article 8 de la Convention qui garantit notamment le droit de chacun au respect de sa correspondance . 42 . La Commission estime que cette partie de la requÃªte ne saurait donc Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e au regard de la Convention . Aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli, cette partie de la requÃªte doit donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable . b. AccÃ¨s Ã un tribunal en vue d'intenter une action civile en rÃ©paration 43 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint ensuite qu'entre septembre 1976 et le 5 dÃ©cembre 1978, il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã prendre contact avec son solicitor en vue d'intenter une action civile en rÃ©paration aux gardiens responsables des brutalitÃ©s qu'il avait subies le 4 septembre 1976 . II soutient qu'il s'est vu derechef refuser le droit d'accÃ¨s aux tribunaux en violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 et que l'article 8 a Ã©tÃ© violÃ© par suite des ingÃ©rences abusives dont sa correspondance avec son solicitor a fait l'objet . 44 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fail valoir qu'9 la lumiÃ©re de la prÃ©sente requÃªte, il a examinÃ© la maniÃ©re dont la rÃ©gle de l'enquÃªte interne prÃ©alable a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e dans le cas du requÃ©rant . Il a conclu que l'enquÃªte de police sur les brutalitÃ©s allÃ©guÃ©es sur la personne des dÃ©tenus de la prison de Hull et les poursuites engagÃ©es ultÃ©rieurement contre certains gardiens ne pouvaient pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme faisant partie de la procÃ©dure interne normale d'examen des griefs des dÃ©tenus . A la fin de 1978, il a donc rapportÃ© sa dÃ©cision antÃ©rieure et, le 5 octobre 1978, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© avisÃ© qu'il Ã©tait libre d'intenter le procÃ©s civil qu'il souhaitait . Il considÃ©re, nÃ©anmoins, que jusqu'9 ce que l'enquÃªte de l'Inspecteur en chef ait fait place Ã la l'enquÃ©te de police en mars 1978, la rÃ¨gle susmentionnÃ©e a Ã©tÃ© correctement appliquÃ©e et que son application a Ã©tÃ© conforme Ã la Convention . Tout en regrettant le retard causÃ© au requÃ©rant en ce qui concerne l'autorisation de consulter un homme de loi, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur considÃ©re qu'il n'a pas portÃ© atteinte Ã la substance du droit du requÃ©rant protÃ©gÃ© par l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention . Ce grief devrait donc Ãªtre rejetÃ© comme manifestement mal fondÃ© . 45 . Sur ce point, la Commission peut se borner Ã renvoyer Ã ce qu'elle a dÃ©jÃ dÃ©clarÃ© au sujet de la recevabilitÃ© de la partie IV a) (cf . Â« En droit Â» ,
- 169 -
par . 37-42) . Les motifs retenus pour dÃ©clarer cette partie de la requÃ¨te recevable sont applicables Ã fortiori aux prÃ©sents griefs . Le fait incontestÃ© que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© empÃ©chÃ© pendani deux ans et trois mois de consulter ses solicitors en vue d'intenter une action en rÃ©paration soulÃ¨ve d'importantes questions d'interprÃ©tation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention, qui sont d'une complexitÃ© telle que leur solution dÃ©pend d'un examen au fond . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ il y a eu interception ou ingÃ©rence dans la correspondance du requÃ©rant avec son solicitor, des questions importantes et complexes se posent aussi sur le terrain de l'article 8 de la Convention . 46 . La Commission estime que cette partie de la requÃªte ne peut pas Ãªtre rejetÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e au regard de la Convention . Aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli, cette partie de la requÃ©te doit donc Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable . V . IngÃ©rences dans la correspondance faisant Ã© tat de plaintes relatives au traitement subi en prison et aux conditions de dÃ©tention, mais ne faisant pas allusion Ã l'engagement de poursuites judiciaire - a rt icle 8 47 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en outre d'ingÃ©rences dans sa correspondance en violation de l'article 8 : ainsi, deux lettres Ã son dÃ©putÃ©, datÃ©es des 3 et 18 novembre 1976, ont Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©es par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires et une lettre du 18 novembre 1976 Ã Mme K . a Ã©tÃ© transmise au MinistÃ¨re de l'IntÃ©rieur ; le 11 novembre 1976, il s'est vu refuser l'autorisation d'adresser Ã son solicitor une copie de sa dÃ©claration Ã l'Inspecteur en chef des prisons . 48 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur affirme en ce qui concerne la lettre Ã Mme K ., que rien n'indique que cette lettre ait Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e ; ce grief devrait donc Ã©tre rejetÃ© comme manifestement mal fondÃ© . En ce qui concerne la dÃ©cision d'empÃªcher le requÃ©rant d'envoyer Ã son solicitor une copie de la dÃ©claration qu'il prÃ©parait pour l'Inspecteur en chef, elle a Ã©tÃ©, aux yeux du Gouvernement, compatible avec l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . En outre, en ce qui concerne les deux lettres adressÃ©es au dÃ©putÃ© du requÃ©rant, la lettre du 18 novembre 1976 aurait Ã©tÃ© postÃ©e le 1â¢1 dÃ©cembre 1976 et reÃ§ue par lui . Le seconde lettre a Ã©tÃ© interceptÃ©e Ã juste titre, selon le Gouvernement, qui estime en consÃ©quence que cette partie de la requÃªte devrait Ãªtre rejetÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e . 49 . La Commission observe que les faits affÃ©rents Ã cette partie de la requÃªte sont contestÃ©s dans une certaine mesure entre les parties . Elle relÃ¨ve toutefois que le droit du requÃ©rant au respect de sa correspondance a subi une ingÃ©rence au moins deux fois, et peut Ãªtre quatre fois . La question de savoir dans quelle mesure le droit du requÃ©rant au respect de sa correspondance a subi une ingÃ©rence, et si cette ingÃ©rence Ã©tait justifiÃ©e pour un ou plusieurs des motifs Ã©noncÃ©s Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2 de la Convention, sont d'importantes questions de fait et de droit qui nÃ©cessitent un examen au fond de cette partie de l'affaire .
- 170 -
50 . II s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte ne peut pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention, et qu'elle doit donc Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable, aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli . VI . Examen de l'affaire par le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons - article 6 51 . En ce qui concerne l'examen de l'affaire par le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons de Hull, le 14 dÃ©cembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a fait valoir en dernier lieu que si sa demande tendant Ã obtenir une ordonnance de Certiorari devait Ãªtre rejetÃ©e, en fin de compte, la procÃ©dure constituerait selon lui une violation manifeste de l'article 6 de la Convention . 52 . La Commission a pris en considÃ©ration le fait que la Â« Divisional Court Â» a estimÃ© que l'audition devant le comitÃ© des visiteurs avait Ã©tÃ© inÃ©quitable et a, en consÃ©quence, annulÃ© toutes les constatations faites au sujet de la participation du requÃ©rant Ã la mutinerie . Sans entrer dans l'examen du point de savoir si l'article 6 Ã©tait applicable aux procÃ©dures devant le co_mitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons en l'espÃ¨ce, la Commission considÃ©re que la dÃ©cision de la Â« Divisional Court Â» a fait droit au grief du requÃ©rant .53 . Dans ces conditions, le requÃ©rant ne peut plus se prÃ©tendre victime, a u sens de l'article 25, d'une violation par le Royaume-Uni des droits Ã©noncÃ©s dans la Convention, pour ce qui est de la procÃ©dure devant le comitÃ© des visiteurs des prisons .54 . II s'ensuit que le reste de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ© a u sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
DECLARE RECEVABLE, tout moyen de fond Ã© tant rÃ©se rv Ã© , - les griefs du requÃ©rant relatif aux brutalitÃ©s subies Ã la prison de Hull le 4 septembre 1976 ; - les griefs du requÃ©rant relatifs aux ingÃ©rences dans les contacts qu'il a tentÃ© de prendre avec son solicitor et un dÃ©putÃ© en vue d'intenter des actions civiles en diffamation et en rÃ©paration ; - les autres griefs du requÃ©rant relatifs aux ingÃ©rences dans sa correspondance contenant des plaintes quant au traitement qu'il avait subi en prison ;
DECLARE LA REDUETE IRRECEVABLE POUR LE SURPLUS .
- 171 -

| REED C. ROYAUME-UNI

Synthèse

Analyses

Parties

Origine de la décision

Source