Golder v United Kingdom · Application no. 4451/70
European Court of Human Rights · 21 February 1975
Sidney Golder wanted legal advice about suing a prison officer for libel after an allegation about his conduct during a disturbance. Under the prison arrangements then in place, he asked the Home Secretary for permission to consult a solicitor. Permission was refused. No libel action had yet reached a judge.
The missing first step
Article 6 sets out guarantees for the fair determination of civil rights. The European Court of Human Rights asked what those guarantees could achieve for someone prevented from starting proceedings. It held that access to a court was inherent in the protection. The refusal interfered with that access. The Court also found a breach of the Article 8 protection for correspondence.
The judgment did not establish whether the officer had libelled Golder. The point was who should have the opportunity to decide a civil claim. Nor did the Court make every procedural restriction unlawful. Rules governing access can serve legitimate purposes. A barrier preventing the first confidential consultation raises a different question from an ordinary rule about how to file a case.
Identifying the practical barrier
Write down the civil issue you wanted advice about, whom you tried to contact, what response you received and on which dates. Is there a decision to challenge, an administrative delay, or a deadline expiring while a request goes unanswered? Those distinctions can help a legal adviser identify an effective next step. This 1975 judgment concerned the rules and refusal in Golder’s case. It is a source for the underlying right, rather than a guide to contemporary prison correspondence procedures.
Read the judgment in Golder v United Kingdom
Related reading · The cost of bringing a claim in UNISON
