A member of the training team should join each group to ensure that the discussion is relevant. Comments can be invited from the observing trainees at the end of each discussion. Points to be highlighted/suggested areas for discussion: CASE STUDY 1 39. – Reference to the instruments indicates that the censoring of prisoners’ mail without proper cause is an infringement of rights; 39. – In the circumstances, it would not appear necessary to censor all the mail of this prisoner, but it might be appropriate to censor correspondence with the suspected individual; 39. – The prison director would need to consider whether he had an active role to play in the detection of a crime allegedly being planned by someone not under his care and control. CASE STUDY 2 39. – It is necessary to make a risk assessment in this case; 39. – Clearly, the prisoner is entitled to communicate with her family. If there is a strong possibility that security will be infringed, it is possible for staff to require that all mail be opened in front of them; 39. – It is likely that a community service agency will be able to provide a fluent speaker in the foreign language. This contact will be beneficial to the prisoner as well as to the authorities. CASE STUDY 3 39. – This is a difficult and sensitive area for prison staff to have to manage; 39. – it is unlikely that the prison director will be willing to interfere with the right of a prisoner to write to members of her family; 39. – The director will not wish to cause any further distress to the family members, but if the letters are not obscene or threatening in nature it is unlikely that the prison will take any direct action; 39. – A private meeting could be arranged where the prisoner and her family could discuss the difficulty; 39. – If there is no resolution through discussion, the family have the option of not opening, or of returning unopened, any mail which is obviously from the prison. 116