The Prisoner Communication Services policy came into force on 1st October 2011 and replaced PSO 4400 Chapter 4 and PSI 06/2011. It is concerned with matters of prisoners’ communications and includes the prohibition of prisoners’ from accessing social networking sites. There are several forms of domestic legislation which grant power to the Secretary of State to pass policies regarding prisoner’s treatments and rights, including statutes and case law. The Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Court of Human Rights mean that this legislation is now more widely interpreted to make it compatible with Europe’s convention on human rights. There are advantages to the policy in PSI 49/100, for example it can protect public order and security and the
…show more content…
In R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison and Others, ex parte Hague and Weldon v The Home Office, one prisoner argued that he had a right to sue where conditions were broken, which in this case was that the prisoner alleged mistreatment by guards as he was placed in solitary confinement. In his judgment, Lord Bridge concluded in this case that the rule ‘is purely preventive measure… it is inconceivable that the legislature intended to confer a cause of action on the segregated prisoner’. His claim for judicial review was allowed but not his claim for damages. It has therefore been recognised that it’s not enough for a claimant to show that a provision was designed to protect prisoners and that not every duty in a statute can give rise to a cause of action.
A case specifically related to prisoner communications is R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms and another. In this case it was held that there could not be a blanket ban on prisoners’ communication. It was believed that this would contradict Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding Freedom of Expression, which states ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of …show more content…
The convention is mainly concerned with the protection of basic human rights. The European Court on Human was created to pass judgement on cases which involve the application of the convention on human rights. Acts of Parliament are to be read and interpreted by the courts as widely as possible to make them compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the decisions of the ECtHR when they come before the courts. It has been important in defining the scope of legislative powers regarding prisoners’ rights. This was relevant in the case of Simms, as mentioned above, as due to the implementation of the convention through the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts ruled that a blanket ban of all communications would contravene article 10. Therefore, the Human Rights Act has an implication on the domestic legislation which grants the executive power to pass policies detailing the treatment and rights of prisoners, as it alters the way this legislation can be
In R v Deputy Governor of Parkhurst Prison and Others, ex parte Hague and Weldon v The Home Office, one prisoner argued that he had a right to sue where conditions were broken, which in this case was that the prisoner alleged mistreatment by guards as he was placed in solitary confinement. In his judgment, Lord Bridge concluded in this case that the rule ‘is purely preventive measure… it is inconceivable that the legislature intended to confer a cause of action on the segregated prisoner’. His claim for judicial review was allowed but not his claim for damages. It has therefore been recognised that it’s not enough for a claimant to show that a provision was designed to protect prisoners and that not every duty in a statute can give rise to a cause of action.
A case specifically related to prisoner communications is R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms and another. In this case it was held that there could not be a blanket ban on prisoners’ communication. It was believed that this would contradict Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding Freedom of Expression, which states ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of …show more content…
The convention is mainly concerned with the protection of basic human rights. The European Court on Human was created to pass judgement on cases which involve the application of the convention on human rights. Acts of Parliament are to be read and interpreted by the courts as widely as possible to make them compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the decisions of the ECtHR when they come before the courts. It has been important in defining the scope of legislative powers regarding prisoners’ rights. This was relevant in the case of Simms, as mentioned above, as due to the implementation of the convention through the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts ruled that a blanket ban of all communications would contravene article 10. Therefore, the Human Rights Act has an implication on the domestic legislation which grants the executive power to pass policies detailing the treatment and rights of prisoners, as it alters the way this legislation can be