Letter from the Chair of the Committee
to Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord
Chancellor, dated 13 October 2009
SZULUK V
UNITED KINGDOM
(APP NO
36936/05, 2 JUNE 2009)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights is continuing
its practice of reviewing the implementation of judgments of the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finding the UK to be in
breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
I am writing to inquire about the Government's
response to the judgment in Szuluk v United Kingdom. In
Szuluk, the applicant complained that the reading of a
prisoner's medical correspondence with his doctor was a breach
of the Article 8 ECHR right for respect for correspondence.
The Court held "in light of the severity of the applicant's
medical condition, the Court considers that uninhibited correspondence
with a medical specialist in the context of a prisoner suffering
from a life-threatening condition should be afforded no less protection
than the correspondence between a prisoner and an MP".[45]
It concluded that "the monitoring of the applicant's medical
correspondence, limited as it was to the prison medical officer,
did not strike a fair balance with his right to respect for his
correspondence in the circumstances."[46]
We note that since the facts which gave rise
to Mr Szuluk's complaint, the relevant law has changed, that the
NHS now provides medical care to prisoners and that Prison Service
Order (PSO) 4411 is relevant.
I would be grateful for your response to the
following questions:
1. What steps does the Government propose to
take to implement domestically the decision of the ECtHR in Szuluk?
2. Specifically, does the Government propose
to revise PSO 4411, Chapter 5, to make clear that correspondence
between a prisoner and a medical professional should be subject
to confidential handling arrangements, similar to those applicable
to legal advisors, Members of Parliament, or the then Healthcare
Commission? If so, in what way(s) does it propose to revise the
PSO?
(a)If the Government does not propose to amend PSO
4411, please explain why not and how it will ensure compliance
with the judgment?
(b)Similarly, if the Government proposes not to include
medical professionals within the list of organisations/individuals
within para 5.1 which are subject to confidential handling
arrangements, please explain on what basis the Government believes
such a distinction to be justified.
3. Does the Government consider that any amendments
to the Prison Rules, Prison Service Instructions or other Prison
Service Orders are necessary to ensure compliance with Article
8 in relation to correspondence between a prisoner and his
or her medical advisor? If so, what amendments does it propose
to make?
In addition, please provide us with copies of
the Government's submissions to the Committee of Ministers and
ensure that we continue to be updated as further information is
provided.
13 October 2009
45 Para 53. Back
46
Para 54. Back
|
