ESSEX PAPER 3: INITIAL GUIDANCE ON THE INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE UN NELSON MANDELA RULES The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) considers that it might exceptionally be necessary to delay for a certain period a detained person’s access to a lawyer of his choice, but stressed, that this must not result in the denial of a lawyer. The Committee recommended, in such cases, ‘access to another independent lawyer who can be trusted not to jeopardise the legitimate interests of the investigation’. The Committee noted that it is ‘perfectly feasible to make satisfactory arrangements in advance for this type of situation, in consultation with the local Bar Association or Law Society’.188 The CPT has stressed that once such a ‘replacement lawyer’ has been chosen it ‘fails to see any need for derogations to the confidentiality of meetings between the lawyer and the person concerned’.189 Conditions of consultation Rule 61(1) states that ‘Consultations may be in sight but not hearing’ of prison staff, and requires access to legal representation ‘without interception’.190 The experts emphasised that consultations with legal advisers in full privacy, in a separate room, should be the norm. In most cases the presence of a prison officer will neither be required nor an efficient use of staff resources. Even if not listening, the presence of a prison officer may still be intimidating and impact negatively on the conversation between legal adviser and prisoner. The Rule clarifies that, if ever the presence of a prison officer is deemed necessary for security reasons, it must not be within hearing (e.g. rooms should be designed so prison staff can observe the consultation, but unable to hear the conversations inside). It should be noted that the safety of the legal adviser is the only conceivable rationale behind the presence of staff, except for when restrictions are required by a judicial authority (see above). Where prison administrations seek to keep oversight for security considerations it could apply the practice of multiple meetings in parallel in a large room with staff present in the distance (out of hearing). Decisions on limiting confidentiality is outside of the prison administrations’ mandate, but would have to be taken by a judicial authority. Guidance can be drawn, for example, from the European Prison Rules, which state that ‘A judicial authority may in exceptional circumstances authorise restrictions on such confidentiality to prevent serious crime or major breaches of prison safety and security’. Confidentiality of legal correspondence needs to be ensured as well. Access to legal documents The experts discussed the relevance of Rule 53 which enshrines the right of prisoners to have access to their legal documents ‘without access by the prison administration’. CPT 21st General Report, CPT/Inf (2011) 28, para. 22, and CPT, Report to the Turkish Government on the visit to Turkey carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 16 to 17 January 2013, Strasbourg, 13 March 2014, CPT/Inf (2014) 7, para. 19. 188  CPT 21st General Report, CPT/Inf (2011) 28, para. 23. 189  European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence held that authorities cannot prevent prisoners contacting a lawyer, or delay it. See Golder v The United Kingdom, Application no. 4451/70, 21 February 1975. 190  Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre | 54