"

Van Hoogstraten (R on the Application of) v Governor HMP Belmarsh
[2002] EWHC 1965 Admin

Jackson J

Case No: CO/4302/2002TABDate: 23/09/2002

40. The term ""legal adviser"" in rule 2 must embrace any lawyer who (a) is chosen by the prisoner, and (b) is entitled to represent the prisoner in criminal proceedings to which the prisoner is a defendant. On the evidence before the court, Mr Di Stefano is an Italian avvocato who falls within the definition of ""EEC lawyer"" in the 1978 Order. He has been chosen by the claimant to represent him in ongoing criminal proceedings. It therefore follows that Mr Di Stefano falls within the term ""his solicitor or counsel"" in rule 2 of the Prison Rules.
41. Under rule 38(1) Mr Di Stefano must be afforded reasonable facilities for interviewing his client in Belmarsh Prison in connection with the current criminal proceedings.

MR JUSTICE JACKSON: Thank you. The claimant has won on the grounds set out in his claim form. The claimant has won on the live issues before the court. The proper order in all the circumstances of this case is that costs should follow the event. The defendant must pay the claimant's costs of the judicial review proceedings.

Van Hoogstraten, Re
[2002] EWHC 2015 Admin

Jackson J

Case No: CO/4302/2002TABDate: 26/09/2002

10. The argument which Mr Johnson deployed at the hearing last week was to the following effect: An Italian avvocato is not a solicitor or a barrister; therefore he is not one of those persons entitled under Rule 38 of the Prison Rules 1999 to make a legal visit to Mr Van Hoogstraten in Belmarsh Prison. There was before the court last week evidence that Mr Di Stefano is an Italian avvocato. There are a number of references to this in the documentation before me. Perhaps most pertinently the bundle at page 67 includes Mr Di Stefano's identification card and halfway down we see: ""Professione Avvocato"". On the right of that there is a photograph of Mr Di Stefano and his signature.

11. There was no reservation by the defendant to the effect that Mr Di Stefano was not an avvocato at all. Argument proceeded last week on the question whether or not an Italian avvocato fell within rule 2(1) and rule 38(1) of the Prison Rules.

17. It should be borne in mind that Mr Di Stefano is the lawyer who has been chosen by the claimant to represent him in criminal proceedings. He has been chosen as the lead lawyer to represent the claimant, and under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights the claimant is entitled to be represented by the lawyer of his choice. That must entail the opportunity to confer with the lawyer of his choice before he appears for sentence.

25. Mr Di Stefano has been appointed as the principal legal adviser of the claimant. It seems to me that Mr Di Stefano has exercised wise judgment in the legal team which he has appointed. He has selected as one of the Leading Counsel to make the plea in mitigation a leading authority in the field of criminal sentencing. Mr Tam submits that with such a distinguished legal team it is quite unnecessary for Mr Di Stefano to visit his client in prison. He can receive instructions at secondhand, and Article 6 does not require Mr Di Stefano's presence.

26. I do not agree. Mr Van Hoogstraten has chosen Mr Di Stefano as his principal legal adviser. The choice of principal legal adviser is for the client. It is not for me; it is not for counsel in this case or anybody else. It is a matter for the client, and if he wishes to appoint an Italian avvocato as his principal legal adviser, and that Italian avvocato has rights to practise in this country under the 1978 Order, then Mr Van Hoogstraten is entitled to take that course. 

Van Hoogstraten, Re
[2002] EWHC 2015 Admin
Jackson J

And more important the concession made by the Home Office 

71. If your Lordship then goes on to page 61, your Lordship will see the letter written to the Central Criminal Court. In the second paragraph of that the letter is said to enclose the documentation referred to therein, including the Power of Attorney and the Certificate that he has as to his good standing as an avvocato in Italy. Then in the fourth paragraph, the identification card which describes him as an avvocato. 

72. Now, it appears that the certificates on 64, 65 and 66 are the certificates referred to, but as your Lordship will recall I think a concession was made last week that those certificates are in fact of good character in terms of criminal convictions and charges and do not relate to his status as an avvocato. And then the identification card on 67 itself describes him as “avvocato"". One does not know which of the two ambiguous meanings that might have. 

73. MR JUSTICE JACKSON: Woul