Szuluk, R (on the application of) v HM Prison Full Sutton

Restrictions on a prisoner’s correspondence with treating doctors engage Article 8 and must be justified as proportionate in the individual circumstances. General prison rules cannot exclude consideration of exceptional medical circumstances. In a life-threatening case involving continuing specialist treatment outside prison, correspondence may require protection from routine reading where inspection could inhibit frank communication and undermine the doctor-patient relationship. The court must respect prison authorities’ expertise while reviewing whether the decision falls within the range of proportionate responses.

The claimant, a Category B prisoner held in a unit containing Category A prisoners, challenged routine reading of his correspondence under Prison Service Order 1000, chapter 36.21. He had a life-threatening medical condition requiring continuing specialist treatment outside prison.

An initial arrangement permitted confidential correspondence with treating practitioners, subject to verification. That arrangement was replaced by a system under which the prison medical officer would inspect the correspondence. The claimant challenged the replacement decision under Article 8.

1. The replacement decision was disproportionate on the exceptional facts. The Governor was required to reconsider the correspondence arrangements in accordance with the judgment’s principles. No damages were awarded, but the claimant was entitled to his costs.
2. Judicial review remained supervisory. The court had to give considerable weight to prison authorities’ expertise, while deciding whether the restriction fell within the spectrum of proportionate responses.
3. General rules promoted consistency and manageable administration, but could not prevent consideration of exceptional individual circumstances. The claimant’s life-threatening condition, continuing specialist treatment and legitimate concerns about his prison treatment justified exceptional handling.
4. Inspection by the prison medical officer could inhibit frank communication and compromise the doctor-patient relationship. The initial arrangement, subject to verification that the recipient was directly involved in the claimant’s treatment, was proportionate in this case.
5. The decision was confined to its exceptional facts and did not establish a general rule for all medical correspondence. The matter was to be reconsidered by the Governor of the prison in which the claimant was held. The claim for damages was refused.

First-instance judicial review in the Administrative Court. No earlier decision or appeal is stated in the judgment.