Killer in Wakefield jail loses human rights action over his mail

Peter Chester, who last year suffered defeat in proceedings brought over the right to vote, complained about a policy introduced at Wakefield Prison in a bid to stop bogus legally privileged correspondence being used to send drugs and pornography to inmates.

The latest unsuccessful court action by Chester, 54, who claimed his rights had been breached, related to the way the prison in West Yorkshire deals with certain letters from his legal advisers and courts, constituting what is generally known as "Rule 39 correspondence".

He took issue with one part of the policy which states: "Any Rule 39 mail that gives the correspondence staff cause for concern, ie hand-written, not franked, tatty envelope etc, will be entered in the submit book for opening in the prisoner's presence."

Mr Justice Foskett, who handed down his ruling today at Leeds Combined Court Centre, said: "This case raises the not unfamiliar problem of the extent to which the legally recognised fundamental rights of a prisoner can be accommodated within the setting of a prison which has to protect itself from malevolent external influences and manipulation that can lead to significant internal problems."

He said the prison governor issued an Offender Information Notice some five months before Chester's transfer back to Wakefield in November 2008 which stated that "recent intelligence suggests that abuse of the Rule 39 Correspondence procedures is allowing prisoners to receive illicit items, namely drugs and pornography".

It also indicated that the procedure would take immediate effect "in an attempt to stem this supply route".

The judge said the essential issue in the case was whether the policy relating to hand-written envelopes, apparently from a legal representative or a court, was a "proportionate and measured response to dealing with a perceived problem".

He pointed out that the contents of a "questioned" letter would not be read by prison staff.

Chester was sentenced to life after killing his niece, Donna Marie Gillbanks, in Blackpool, in 1977.

The judge said that "whatever might be said" about what he did in 1977 there was no suggestion that at any stage during his lengthy incarceration he had abused the Rule 39 procedure.

Dismissing Chester's application for judicial review, the judge ruled that the authorities at Wakefield were "justified" in formulating and implementing the policy in the way they did, but added that, in his view, it should be kept under "constant review".

He said: "The law is very clear that a prisoner's right to unimpeded access to the courts and to his or her legal advisers is a fundamental right that may be interfered with only in exceptional circumstances.

"Simply putting in place a policy such as that implemented in this case and not continuing to monitor whether it is necessary and/or whether it can be modified could lead to further applications to the court."

The judge said: "It may be unfortunate for him (Chester) that his communications have been 'caught' by the policy set in place before his return to Wakefield, but there are many aspects of everyday life in which those who are entirely innocent of the activities that may have led to the introduction of a particular policy find themselves subject to that policy."