Raymond v Honey
A prisoner keeps all civil rights not taken away expressly or by necessary implication, including the right of access to the courts.
Facts
Mr Raymond, a prisoner, wanted to bring legal proceedings against the prison governor, Mr Honey. The governor stopped a letter from Mr Raymond to his solicitor about the proposed proceedings, and later stopped an application by Mr Raymond to the High Court to commit the governor for contempt. The governor relied on the Prison Rules, made under the Prison Act 1952, which allowed restrictions on prisoners' correspondence.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the governor's conduct in stopping the application to the High Court was a contempt of court. Lord Wilberforce said that, under English law, a convicted prisoner, in spite of his imprisonment, retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication. The Prison Act 1952 did not authorise regulations that would interfere with a prisoner's right of access to the courts, and the rules could not be read as doing so. The case is an important early statement of the principle of legality and the constitutional right of access to justice.
Related cases on rule of law
- Al Rawi v Security Service [2011] UKSC 34, [2012] 1 AC 531
- Burmah Oil Co Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75
- Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029
- Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206
- M v Home Office [1994] 1 AC 377
- Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1979] Ch 344
- R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60, [2009] 1 AC 756
- R (Evans) v Attorney General [2015] UKSC 21, [2015] AC 1787
Studying public law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
