Letter Campaign Request Regarding a Pre-Recorded Phone Message
In February 2004, the administration at Glenochil Prison in Stirlingshire introduced card-free phones for prisoners based on a PIN number system. The system is identical with one that has operated in English prisons since the late nineties. There is however one critical difference.
When the new PIN phone system was first introduced in the English prison system, the Prison Service attempted to include a pre-recorded message at the beginning of each outgoing call. The message stated that the call was being made from a Penal institution and was monitored and recorded.
An immediate legal challenge was mounted against the use of the pre-recorded message on the grounds that it contravened Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides that:
1. Everybody has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Because The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into U.K. law by The Human Rights Act 1998 the challenge over the pre-recorded phone message could be heard in the English domestic courts.
The Challenge was supported by the view of The Committee for the Prevention of Torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (The C.P.T.) which states that the maintenance of contact between a prisoner and his family and close friends is not only a fundamental human right but is also of crucial importance in helping ensure the re-integration into his family life will be effective.
Before the legal challenge was properly heard, the English Prison abandoned the pre-recorded phone messages, clearly acknowledging that it was indefensible in the context of Article 8 of the E.C.H.R.
On the ninth of February, the Governor of Glenochil Prison, Kate Donegan, informed prisoners that regardless of the successful legal challenge against the pre-recorded phone message in the English Prison Service, the Scottish Prison Service had decided that it was legally empowered to use the message on phones in all Scottish Prisons.
Kilmarnock Prison, operated by Premier Services, a private company, had used the pre-recorded phone message for a considerable period of time and had encountered no legal challenge, obviously encouraging the Scottish Prison Service to use the message universally throughout the Scottish system.
On the 16th February in reply to an inquiry from lawyers acting for prisoners at Glenochil, Assistant Governor Brian Ironside said the use of the pre-recorded message was justified under the Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act and could therefore continue. In fact, all legislation in Scotland must comply with The European Convention on Human Rights and the misuse of statutory powers to justify or excuse an abuse of human rights is clearly unlawful.
The fact is the Scottish Prison Service is currently in breach of Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights by its use of the pre-recorded phone message and in due course will be required to account for its action.
In the meantime prisoner's contact with their families and friends here in Scotland is being deliberately undermined and eroded.
*************************************************************************************************************
Below is a copy of a letter from the Scottish Human Rights Center.
*************************************************************************************************************
Re:pre-recorded phone message
Thank you for your letter to the Scottish Human Rights Center dated 10th February. I apologize for the delay in responding to your enquiry.
The European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 of the Convention provides that:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Therefore under Article 8(1) you have a right to privacy in relation to your telephone calls. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or degrading treatment or Punishment (the CPT) states that the maintenance of contact between a prisoner and his family and close friends is not only a fundamental human right but is also of crucial importance in helping ensure that the prisoner's eventual re-intergration into his family and friends will be effective. Article 8(1) covers communication by means of telephone conversations due to your right to private life (Klass and Others v Germany 1978) and family life (Andersson v Sweden 1992). The pre-recorded message is thus a clear interference with your rights under Art 8(1).
However the main hurdle is under Article 8(2). Article 8(2) provides state authorities with a wide margin of appreciation and discretion. A breach under Art 8(1) will be justified if it is in accordance with law, has a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society. However the prison authorities would be required to show there is some pressing social need for the measure. In addition the measure must be proportionate and have some legal basis in domestic law. It could be argued that a less restrictive measure could have been adopted instead (for example the public could be protected by preventing prisoners from withholding the phone number and monitoring calls).
As an advice center, we do not provide legal representation. I would thus advise you to consult a lawyer and seek judicial review of the prison board's decision.
Thank you very much for drawing this very serious matter to our attention and it will be passed to our Board. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of any assistance to you or to your solicitor.
With best wishes,
Magdalene McCallion
Advice and Information Worker
**************************************************************************************************************
This is a letter campaign appeal on behalf of John Bowden, a long time prison resister.
The Governor recently put a taped message on the front of prisoners phone calls warning whoever they called that the person making the call is an inmate in a maximum security prison. Her alleged reason for this is that she claims she has a duty to 'protect the public'. Their calls are already closely monitored and recorded, and all phone numbers are vetted and checked by the security department. Prisoners are not allowed to phone 'the public', but only individuals who have already consented to receive their calls.
The imposition of the phone message would have a serious detrimental effect on prisoners contact with their family and friends because they would now be reluctant to phone their wives and girlfriends, etc, at work or their children if they were in foster homes. The information given is so confusing that in practice it was found that many people inadvertently prevented their friends/relations in prison from phoning them. To add insult to injury it is the prisoners who pay for the time the message takes up on the phone.
The governor, who recently imposed a 'no physical contact' rule on visits, has tried to argue that she is legally obliged to impose the phone message, which is not true as prisoners in the English system successfully challenged through the courts an attempt by the English Prison authorities to impose a similar phone message.
Please send your letters of complaint to:
Governor Kate Donegan
HMP Glenochil
Tullibody
Clackmannanshire
FK10 3AD
In February 2004, the administration at Glenochil Prison in Stirlingshire introduced card-free phones for prisoners based on a PIN number system. The system is identical with one that has operated in English prisons since the late nineties. There is however one critical difference.
When the new PIN phone system was first introduced in the English prison system, the Prison Service attempted to include a pre-recorded message at the beginning of each outgoing call. The message stated that the call was being made from a Penal institution and was monitored and recorded.
An immediate legal challenge was mounted against the use of the pre-recorded message on the grounds that it contravened Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides that:
1. Everybody has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Because The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into U.K. law by The Human Rights Act 1998 the challenge over the pre-recorded phone message could be heard in the English domestic courts.
The Challenge was supported by the view of The Committee for the Prevention of Torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (The C.P.T.) which states that the maintenance of contact between a prisoner and his family and close friends is not only a fundamental human right but is also of crucial importance in helping ensure the re-integration into his family life will be effective.
Before the legal challenge was properly heard, the English Prison abandoned the pre-recorded phone messages, clearly acknowledging that it was indefensible in the context of Article 8 of the E.C.H.R.
On the ninth of February, the Governor of Glenochil Prison, Kate Donegan, informed prisoners that regardless of the successful legal challenge against the pre-recorded phone message in the English Prison Service, the Scottish Prison Service had decided that it was legally empowered to use the message on phones in all Scottish Prisons.
Kilmarnock Prison, operated by Premier Services, a private company, had used the pre-recorded phone message for a considerable period of time and had encountered no legal challenge, obviously encouraging the Scottish Prison Service to use the message universally throughout the Scottish system.
On the 16th February in reply to an inquiry from lawyers acting for prisoners at Glenochil, Assistant Governor Brian Ironside said the use of the pre-recorded message was justified under the Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act and could therefore continue. In fact, all legislation in Scotland must comply with The European Convention on Human Rights and the misuse of statutory powers to justify or excuse an abuse of human rights is clearly unlawful.
The fact is the Scottish Prison Service is currently in breach of Article 8 of The European Convention on Human Rights by its use of the pre-recorded phone message and in due course will be required to account for its action.
In the meantime prisoner's contact with their families and friends here in Scotland is being deliberately undermined and eroded.
*************************************************************************************************************
Below is a copy of a letter from the Scottish Human Rights Center.
*************************************************************************************************************
Re:pre-recorded phone message
Thank you for your letter to the Scottish Human Rights Center dated 10th February. I apologize for the delay in responding to your enquiry.
The European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 of the Convention provides that:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Therefore under Article 8(1) you have a right to privacy in relation to your telephone calls. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or degrading treatment or Punishment (the CPT) states that the maintenance of contact between a prisoner and his family and close friends is not only a fundamental human right but is also of crucial importance in helping ensure that the prisoner's eventual re-intergration into his family and friends will be effective. Article 8(1) covers communication by means of telephone conversations due to your right to private life (Klass and Others v Germany 1978) and family life (Andersson v Sweden 1992). The pre-recorded message is thus a clear interference with your rights under Art 8(1).
However the main hurdle is under Article 8(2). Article 8(2) provides state authorities with a wide margin of appreciation and discretion. A breach under Art 8(1) will be justified if it is in accordance with law, has a legitimate aim and is necessary in a democratic society. However the prison authorities would be required to show there is some pressing social need for the measure. In addition the measure must be proportionate and have some legal basis in domestic law. It could be argued that a less restrictive measure could have been adopted instead (for example the public could be protected by preventing prisoners from withholding the phone number and monitoring calls).
As an advice center, we do not provide legal representation. I would thus advise you to consult a lawyer and seek judicial review of the prison board's decision.
Thank you very much for drawing this very serious matter to our attention and it will be passed to our Board. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of any assistance to you or to your solicitor.
With best wishes,
Magdalene McCallion
Advice and Information Worker
**************************************************************************************************************
This is a letter campaign appeal on behalf of John Bowden, a long time prison resister.
The Governor recently put a taped message on the front of prisoners phone calls warning whoever they called that the person making the call is an inmate in a maximum security prison. Her alleged reason for this is that she claims she has a duty to 'protect the public'. Their calls are already closely monitored and recorded, and all phone numbers are vetted and checked by the security department. Prisoners are not allowed to phone 'the public', but only individuals who have already consented to receive their calls.
The imposition of the phone message would have a serious detrimental effect on prisoners contact with their family and friends because they would now be reluctant to phone their wives and girlfriends, etc, at work or their children if they were in foster homes. The information given is so confusing that in practice it was found that many people inadvertently prevented their friends/relations in prison from phoning them. To add insult to injury it is the prisoners who pay for the time the message takes up on the phone.
The governor, who recently imposed a 'no physical contact' rule on visits, has tried to argue that she is legally obliged to impose the phone message, which is not true as prisoners in the English system successfully challenged through the courts an attempt by the English Prison authorities to impose a similar phone message.
Please send your letters of complaint to:
Governor Kate Donegan
HMP Glenochil
Tullibody
Clackmannanshire
FK10 3AD
e-mail:
Homepage:
