Should the prison authorities punish prisoners who blog?

Should the prison authorities punish prisoners who blog?

In Professor David Downes Contrasts in Tolerance (Post-war Penal Policy in the Netherlands and England and Wales), there is a reference to Rijksen’s Prisoners Speak Out (1958) its publication “was clearly an event of major importance in the history of Dutch post-war criminal justice”. The volume consisted of a collection of letters written by serving prisoners which “covered their experiences of the administration of criminal justice. Most contained considerable criticisms of judges and public prosecutors, but also of lawyers and probation workers. The result was a storm of public indignation: the different functionaries were, for the first time, confronted with the implications of their own actions and, for awhile, their self-confidence seemed to be shaken. What had been achieved in any case, was the first piercing of the hermetically closed prison situation. For the first time, prisoners could let their voices be heard from captivity”.

Professor Downes goes on to say: “The Ministry of Justice first tried to suppress the book, thus perhaps guaranteeing an even greater impact. Even 20 years after it’s publication in a fresh edition in 1961, judges and prosecutors named this more than any other book as the source of their belief that too long a sentence of imprisonment would embitter and damage prisoners, both socially and psychologically”. What emerges here is that society can benefit from prisoners speaking out. And yet, the authorities in the Netherlands feared this so much that they at first attempted to stifle the debate.

The position for serving prisoners in the UK was pretty much the same, with the authorities seeking to silence prisoners from speaking out until the Human Rights Act 1998 provided the opportunity to challenge the status quo. The Daily Telegraph reports:

Prisoner wins phone rights case

A PRISONER today secured a legal victory for jail inmates after he won the right to talk to journalists on the telephone on "matters of legitimate public interest".
John Hirst's application for judicial review against Home Secretary David Blunkett and the Home Office was successful at the High Court sitting in Cardiff.
Mr Justice Elias ruled that the Home Office policy on dealing with access to the press by phone by serving prisoners was unlawful.

That should have been the end of the matter, especially as my legal argument referred to Article 10 of the European Convention:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”.

However, in the Letters Page of the June 2009 issue of Inside Time – the national newspaper for prisoners, I found this rather disturbing report:

Writing blogs

NOEL ‘RAZOR’ SMITH - HMP
BLANTYRE HOUSE

“The prison system has strictly forbidden me to write for publication or have any contact with the media therefore my query for the prison service (or whatever bunch of initials they are calling themselves these days) is this: according to Standing Orders and Prison Rules, convicted prisoners are not allowed to write for publication for payment, however there is no mention reference prisoners writing a blog on the internet; for which there is no payment but merely a chance to express an opinion.

So as a serving prisoner can I write a blog? And if not, can they point out the rule or Standing Order which forbids it? Obviously I do not have direct access to the Internet, but I have someone outside who will convert my typed words for the web, so I am anxious to find out what the objections might be.

I believe this is an important issue which may open up a new avenue for serving prisoners to express their opinions, so I look forward to hearing their reply; though they'll probably draft a new rule forbidding it as soon as they are asked the question. Cynical? Moi?”.

The Ministry of Justice writes:

“There is no specific Prison Service policy on prisoners using or posting blogs, as they do not have direct unregulated access to computers or the Internet. However, in terms of the restrictions placed on the contents of prisoners’ correspondence, PSO 4411 Prisoner Communications Correspondence, paragraphs 7.1 (10) (a) to (e) specifically covers the issue of publishing or broadcasting material by newspaper, radio or television transmission. Whilst the policy does not explicitly mention publication or broadcasting on the Internet, such activities would be viewed similarly to any other form of media outlet, as previously mentioned.

Therefore, if any part of a prisoner’s correspondence on a blog contained material which fell under any of these paragraphs, appropriate disciplinary action could be taken for breaching these restrictions.

As for the setting up of a blog, by a third party on behalf of a prisoner, paragraph 7.2 of PSO 4411 states that ‘a prisoner may not ask, in writing or otherwise, another person to make on his or her behalf a communication which he or she would not be allowed to make directly, or which would contravene this Prison Service Order’. While this has often been interpreted in the context of one prisoner asking another prisoner to write/send something out illegally on their behalf, this could be applicable to anyone outside of the prison”.

At least one serving prisoner has chosen to defy the ban on prisoners speaking out. Yesterday Iain Dale, in his Daley Dozen, highlighted the rather excellent blog post from Ben’s Blog “Should prisoners be allowed to blog?”.

In Ben’s profile he writes: “I am a lifer sentenced for murdering a friend when I was 14. I am into my 30th year of a 10 year recommendation”. That is, the trial judge set a tariff of 10 years. He should have been released at the 10 year stage if he no longer poses a risk to the public of re-offending. In the comments section Phil said: “My initial comments are that I find the thought that a 14 year old convicted and incarcerated beyond the recommended years, has something about it that beggars more questions I am guessing than answers - right now anyways”. That observation is spot on because Ben points out he is an activist who legitimately criticises and challenges the system.

In the September 2009 issue of Inside Time, in the Letters Page, we find this:

"Beware of retribution

From: John Bowden – HMP Glenochil

I thought it important to warn prisoners who contribute with articles to the media that are critical and disparaging of the prison system that a real possibility exists of retribution from the authorities in the form of adverse parole reports and denial of release.

In July, a month before a critically important Parole hearing to determine my suitability for release after 28 years of imprisonment, I was issued with a dossier of reports that were to be submitted to the Board for consideration. Included was a report from the prison’s Intelligence Management Unit, which stated that its purpose was to provide a summary of intelligence records held on me that were relevant to risk. Usually this file will contain information about behaviour or activity considered prejudicial to prison security and discipline. This information can and often does have a direct and critical impact on Parole decisions, sentence management and security categorization.

In my case the report listed that ‘Prisoner Bowden had an article published in the August 2008 issue of Inside Time’. Apart from completely misinterpreting the content of the article in question, the IMU report also implied that Inside Time had been used as a vehicle to disseminate material deliberately intended to ferment unrest and disturbances within prisons. More ominously, by equating articles critical of the prison system with a risk to security the intention clearly is to both punish the author and discourage the voicing of critical points in a public forum such as Inside Time.

The question has to be asked as to why a prison intelligence unit should consider a piece of writing, largely of academic interest, so threatening that the release of its author should be prevented?”.

Similarly, in Erwin James’s Guardian article about me The Devilish Advocate he writes: “He eventually received a tariff of 15 years, but served a total of 25 before being released in October last year. He believes his activities as a litigant against the Prison Service and Home Office are the main reason he had to serve the extra years”.

Wrapped up in the question “Should prisoners be allowed to blog?” Is the hidden question of: “Why are the prison authorities using the concept of risk to the public as a means to punish and silence prisoners freedom of expression to criticise the regime?”.