Scottish Prison Service did not violate prisoner’s human rights in opening letters before delivery

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] CSOH 38
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Session Outer House
• Judge:
  Lady Hood

William Beggs, currently imprisoned in HMP Edinburgh, sought to challenge aspects of the respondent’s mail handling in the period between March and July 2025, in which he received hundreds of items of correspondence. These included how SPS officers handled items of correspondence that tested positive for banned substances and items of legal correspondence that appeared to be damaged when handed to him.

The petition was heard by Lady Hood, with Cox, advocate, appearing for the petitioner and McKinlay, advocate, for the respondent.

Seized and destroyed

It was noted that there had been a recent sharp increase in drug consumption among prisoners at HMP Edinburgh, and instances of persons re-using business envelopes in an attempt to smuggle illicit items. Consequently, the prison utilised detailed mail testing SOPs, including opening non-confidential correspondence to test it for illicit substances before giving it to the prisoner.

Because of the volume of mail received by the petitioner, four members of staff were tasked with its processing every mail day. On 2 April 2025, two items of this mail were seized after they tested positive for ketamine. The petitioner was notified that, in line with policy, these items would be passed to the police and destroyed. Mail seized in this manner was not photocopied as a matter of policy due to the potential for damage to photocopying equipment.

Other relevant correspondence to the petition included legal correspondence which had a small tear in the envelope’s transparent window when handed to the petitioner. Despite an investigation, it was unclear how this had happened, and the Internal Complaints Committee found that the incident was an anomaly. The petitioner also asserted that there were at least seven instances where mail was issued to him outwith the typical same day timeframe, including one delay of seven days in issue.

The petitioner sought declarator that the acts of the respondent were incompatible with his rights under Article 8 ECHR and an order interdicting the respondent and SPS officers from destroying his correspondence without him becoming aware of its contents. In respect of the damaged legal correspondence, the prison’s SOP in relation to damaged mail ought to have been engaged.

Not broader failure

In her decision, Lady Hood said of the two items seized on 2 April 2025: “I am satisfied that in the context of the Article 8 right, it was sufficient that the petitioner was informed that the reason for the seizure of the mail was that it had tested positive for an illicit substance. It was unclear what legitimate benefit could be derived by a prisoner knowing more detailed information as to testing which has been carried out. The only reason which was proffered here was that the petitioner was concerned that (despite never having previously been suspected of illicit drug use) the incident might in future be referred to within Parole Board proceedings – and that, if so, the petitioner might wish to make submissions that (based on the level of contamination) cross-contamination must have occurred.”

She added: “Given that the source and contents of correspondence will often not be plain from the envelope itself, it would be necessary for a prison officer to open and read correspondence, in order to inform a prisoner, such as the petitioner, of that information. The current framework of rules in place seeks to strictly control the situations in which a prison officer will be permitted to read correspondence which has been sent to a prisoner.”

Considering the incident with the petitioner’s legal correspondence, Lady Hood said: “There was no question here that the letter could have been removed or read as a result of any small tear. In instances of minimal marks or tears, it is inevitable that individual judgment may differ as to whether they constitute damage in this context. I do not find that this incident represents a failure on the respondent’s part to follow its guidance and policies. The petitioner is not entitled to the declarator which he seeks in this regard.”

She concluded: “When set against the volume of mail received by the petitioner alone, I am not persuaded that the remaining three instances [of delay] represent anything other than occasional failures due to human error. The vouched instances of delay are not evidence of a broader systemic failure in the implementation and operation of the respondent’s systems and policies. The respondent accordingly did not act unlawfully in this regard. The petitioner is not entitled to the declarator which he seeks.”

The petition was therefore refused.