Judge lifts ban on prisoners phoning the press

By Matt Born
Last Updated: 8:21PM GMT 22 Mar 2002 [Deadtreepress report 23/302]

PRISON curbs on inmates talking to the press about the conditions in which they are held are unlawful, the High Court said yesterday.

Mr Justice Elias said that the Home Office policy, which prevents prisoners having telephone conversations with journalists, was in breach of their right of free speech.

He made his ruling after John Hirst, who has served 22 years for killing his landlady with an axe, sought a judicial review of the ban.

Hirst brought the case after falling foul of Prison Service rules allowing inmates to speak to the media only in “exceptional circumstances”.

Hirst, the General Secretary of the Association of Prisoners “trade union”, had given a series of interviews to The Telegraph, Radio 4’s Today programme and Radio 5 Live, among others, about a High Court case he had brought seeking the right of prisoners to vote in general elections.

As a result, he was placed in segregation, then transferred from Nottingham to Rye Hill, Warwicks, a prison where inmates are allowed to call only 10 vetted numbers.

Home Office lawyers had argued that prisoners lose the right to speak to the press as part of their punishment.

In any case, even though they could not speak to journalists by telephone, they were allowed to write to them.

However in his written judgment, Mr Justice Elias agreed with Hirst’s lawyers that the restriction on speaking directly to the media was in breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to freedom of expression.

Hirst’s case was supported by statements from a number of national newspaper and television journalists, including the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby, and the Telegraph.

In sworn submissions, the journalists said that for news of prison issues to be properly and effectively reported it was essential they be allowed to speak to inmates directly.

Mr Justice Elias said the ban “appears to assume that sending information by letter will always, or at least virtually always, suffice to meet the prisoner’s objective.

“In the light of the comments from the journalists, that seems to me to be an unjustified assumption. It will sometimes be enough, but not always.”

Hirst praised the judge for his “courage in standing up for human rights”.

The Home Office is considering an appeal.

Link.

[Upon consideration the Home Office decided not to appeal the judge’s decision. Just as well, because the judge’s decision was legally flawless. However, the Prison Service did implement measures to curb the power of the prisoners union, for example, the introduction of the IEP scheme]

Prisoner fights gagging orders on media links

By Matt Born
Last Updated: 10:26PM BST 12 Aug 2001

THE legality of prison rules which prevent inmates from speaking to the media is to be challenged in the High Court.

Lawyers acting for John Hirst, who is serving a life sentence for manslaughter, have applied for a judicial review of the rule, arguing that it is in breach of the Human Rights Act.

Hirst has been subject to a gagging order after repeatedly giving interviews to journalists, including The Telegraph, Radio 4’s Today programme and Radio 5 Live. Prison rules require inmates to apply in writing to the governor for permission to speak to the press.

They state that permission will normally be refused except in cases where there are “wholly exceptional circumstances”. But Hirst’s lawyers claim that the rules are incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

It states that free speech can be restricted only where it is likely to endanger national security, public morals or public safety. In papers submitted to the court on Friday, Hirst’s lawyers have called for restrictions on telephone calls to be changed so that the onus is on the prison governor to justify preventing a prisoner speaking to the media.

Nogah Ofer, Hirst’s solicitor, said: “This is about the right of the public and media to know what is going on inside, as well as the rights of prisoners to speak out.” Hirst, who was convicted in 1980 of killing his landlady, has become a campaigner for prisoner rights.

In March, he was transferred from Nottingham prison to Rye Hill, Warwicks, and a gagging order imposed after he spoke to Radio 5 Live about the Association of Prisoners, a trade union for inmates, of which he is a founder.

Miss Ofer said they had made proposals to ensure that prison security would not be jeopardised. These included pre-recorded, “chaperoned” radio interviews. “We’re are giving the Prison Service the opportunity to maintain control while ensuring that any restrictions on an inmate’s human rights are both proportionate and necessary.”

A Prison Service spokesman said: “We understand an application is being made and we will consider it when we receive it”.

Link.