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