Killer Beggs wins human rights case for mail interference

William Beggs, the prisoner convicted of the "limbs in the loch" murder, has won a court action against the Scottish Prison Service afer a judge ruled that the authorities unlawfully interfered with correspondence sent to him by the Scottish and UK Information Commissioners' Offices.

Lady Stacey in the Court of Session ruled in a petition for judicial review by Beggs that his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – right to respect for family and private life, home and correspondence – had been breached when confidential mail addressed to him in prison was opened on various occasions in 2013. She rejected a further complaint of delays in confidential mail reaching him on later dates.

The Prison Service conceded that changes had been made in the mail handling system since the petition was raised, but argued that Beggs should not be regarded as a "victim" in terms of s 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998, as on each occasion complained of, he had been present when the mail was opened; it had not been read; oral and written apologies had been made; he had made use of the complaints system; the errors were not intentional; he had not been singled out; and in context of the many items of mail which were received the failures were understandable.

Lady Stacey held that if a decision was made by policy makers that correspondence from a particular source – such as the Information Commissioner – was to be treated as privileged, it was necessary to implement that decision by telling those who handled the mail how to recognise it. Although the Commissioner was not identified on the envelope as the sender, the address was shown and the prison officers whose task it was to sort and deliver mail should have been informed as to the return address of the senders of privileged mail. They had to be made aware of the potential use of double envelopes, and a system of marking the internal envelope as privileged was needed, and could have been adopted earlier than it was.

Whether Beggs should be regarded as a "victim" was a fact-sensitive question, but the history of difficulty with his mail was a relevant consideration, as was the repeated failure to recognise the return address of the Commissioner. The Prison Service was well aware of his concerns over an extended period of years; it had policies to conform to the relevant rules and direction but failed to ensure their implementation, and the failures were such as to show that the system was insufficient to enable Beggs's article 8 right to be upheld.

A further hearing will take place to decide whether a declarator or other remedy should be granted.

Click here to view the opinion.