Quick answer
In Golder v. the United Kingdom (Plenary Court, 21 February 1975, application no. 4451/70), the European Court of Human Rights held that refusing a prisoner permission to contact a solicitor — so that he could bring a libel action against a prison officer — breached both Article 6 § 1 and Article 8. The case is one of the most important in the Court’s history: it established that Article 6 § 1 contains an implied right of access to a court, even though the text does not say so in terms.
Background and facts
Sidney Golder was serving a sentence at Parkhurst Prison. In 1969 a serious disturbance broke out in a part of the prison, and in its aftermath a prison officer identified Golder as one of the men who had assaulted him. That accusation was recorded in his prison file and, although it was later effectively withdrawn, Golder feared it could prejudice his prospects of parole.
Golder wished to consult a solicitor with a view to bringing a civil action in libel against the officer over the allegation. Under the Prison Rules then in force he could not contact a solicitor, or indeed anyone outside the prison, without the permission of the Home Secretary — and that permission was refused. He was thereby prevented both from obtaining legal advice and from setting proceedings in motion. He complained to the Convention institutions.
The complaint
- Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) — that the refusal denied him effective access to a court; and
- Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) — that preventing him from writing to a solicitor interfered with his correspondence.
The Court’s reasoning
The central question was whether Article 6 § 1 — which guarantees a fair and public hearing “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations” but does not expressly guarantee a right to bring a case — includes a right of access to a court at all. The Government argued that it did not: the provision merely regulated how proceedings, once brought, were to be conducted.
The Court rejected that reading. Interpreting the Convention in accordance with the ordinary meaning of its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose — and giving weight to the principle of the rule of law and to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations — it held that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have a claim relating to civil rights and obligations brought before a court. The fair-trial guarantees would be illusory if a State could, without restraint, prevent a person from bringing his case in the first place. By denying Golder any means of consulting a solicitor, the authorities had in substance denied him the right of access to a court, in breach of Article 6 § 1. The Court reached this conclusion by nine votes to three, over dissents that regarded the implied right as going beyond the text.
On Article 8, the Court held unanimously that stopping the applicant from corresponding with a solicitor was an interference with his right to respect for his correspondence which was not shown to be necessary, and therefore also breached the Convention.
The judgment
- by nine votes to three, that there had been a breach of Article 6 § 1;
- unanimously, that there had been a breach of Article 8; and
- unanimously, that these findings were in themselves adequate just satisfaction.
Legacy and subsequent case law
The implied right of access to a court recognised in Golder has become one of the pillars of the Court’s fair-trial jurisprudence. Later cases refined it: Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom confirmed that the right is not absolute and may be subject to proportionate limitations that do not impair its very essence, while a large body of case law has since tested that principle against court fees, limitation periods, state and international immunities, and other procedural bars. Golder also stands for the broader propositions that prisoners retain their Convention rights and that the Convention is to be read purposively, in the light of the rule of law.
What this means for applicants
- Access to a court is inherent in Article 6 § 1. An obstacle that prevents a person from bringing a claim can breach it, even if any eventual hearing would be fair.
- The right is not absolute but limitations must pursue a legitimate aim, be proportionate, and not destroy the essence of the right.
- Confidential contact with a lawyer is protected, and detention is not a bar to asserting these rights.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Golder v. UK decide?
The Court held that refusing a prisoner permission to consult a solicitor breached Article 6 § 1 (by nine votes to three) and Article 8 (unanimously). It established that Article 6 § 1 contains an implied right of access to a court.
Why is Golder so important?
It was the first case to hold that Article 6 § 1 guarantees not only a fair hearing but also the right to bring a case to court in the first place — the right of access to a court, now a cornerstone of fair-trial law.
Is the right of access to a court absolute?
No. Later cases such as Ashingdane v. UK confirmed that it may be subject to proportionate limitations, provided they pursue a legitimate aim and do not impair the very essence of the right.
Do prisoners have the right to contact a lawyer?
Yes. The judgment confirmed that prisoners retain their Convention rights, including access to a court and confidential correspondence with a solicitor.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden
- Salduz v. Turkey
- Del Río Prada v. Spain
- Kudła v. Poland
- Biao v. Denmark
- Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.