Golder v United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1

A prisoner was refused permission by the Home Secretary to consult a solicitor about bringing a libel action against a prison officer. The European Court of Human Rights held this violated Article 6(1), establishing that the right to a fair trial includes a right of access to the courts, and Article 8, as it interfered with his correspondence rights.

Facts

Mr Sidney Elmer Golder, a British citizen serving a fifteen-year prison sentence for robbery with violence at Parkhurst Prison, was accused by prison officer Mr Laird of participating in a prison disturbance on 24 October 1969. Laird later qualified his statement, and another officer confirmed Golder had not participated. Nevertheless, entries were made in Golder’s prison record. On 20 March 1970, Golder petitioned the Home Secretary for permission to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing a civil action for libel against Laird. The Home Secretary refused this request on 6 April 1970.

Issues

Article 6(1)

The primary issue was whether Article 6(1) of the Convention, which guarantees a fair and public hearing by an independent tribunal, also encompasses a right of access to the courts for persons wishing to commence civil proceedings.

Article 8

A secondary issue concerned whether the refusal to permit Golder to correspond with a solicitor constituted an interference with his right to respect for correspondence under Article 8.

Judgment

Right of Access to Courts

The Court held by nine votes to three that Article 6(1) does secure a right of access to the courts. The Court interpreted the Convention using the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties principles, considering the text, context, object and purpose.

“The Court thus reaches the conclusion… that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal. In this way the Article embodies the ‘right to a court’, of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect only.”

The Court emphasised the significance of the rule of law in the Preamble and found:

“And in civil matters one can scarcely conceive of the rule of law without there being a possibility of having access to the courts.”

The Court also noted:

“It would be inconceivable, in the opinion of the Court, that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) should describe in detail the procedural guarantees afforded to parties in a pending lawsuit and should not first protect that which alone makes it in fact possible to benefit from such guarantees, that is, access to a court.”

Article 8 Violation

The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 8. Impeding someone from even initiating correspondence constitutes the most far-reaching form of interference with the right to respect for correspondence. The exceptions in Article 8(2) did not justify the interference in the circumstances.

“Even having regard to the power of appreciation left to the Contracting States, the Court cannot discern how these considerations, as they are understood ‘in a democratic society’, could oblige the Home Secretary to prevent Golder from corresponding with a solicitor with a view to suing Laird for libel.”

Implications

This landmark judgment established that the right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) necessarily includes a right of access to courts, as procedural guarantees would be meaningless without the ability to initiate proceedings. The decision affirmed that hindrance in fact can contravene the Convention just like a legal impediment. The ruling has had profound implications for prisoners’ rights and access to justice across Council of Europe member states, establishing that executive authorities cannot prejudge the merits of legal claims that properly belong to judicial determination.

Verdict: The Court held by nine votes to three that there had been a breach of Article 6(1); unanimously that there had been a breach of Article 8; and unanimously that these findings amounted in themselves to adequate just satisfaction under Article 50.

Source: Golder v United Kingdom [1975] ECHR 1