## Facts

- Two prisoners, Simms and O’Brien, sought to meet with journalists for the purpose of challenging their convictions.
- The Home Secretary used broad discretionary powers under prison rules, derived from the Prison Act 1952, to prohibit such journalist visits.
- The prisoners argued that this prohibition infringed upon their fundamental right to free speech, recognized at common law and later under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

## Issues

1. Whether the Home Secretary’s decision to prohibit journalist visits, based on broadly worded prison rules, unlawfully restricted the prisoners’ fundamental right to free speech.
2. Whether legislation can restrict fundamental rights without clear and unambiguous wording expressly authorizing such a limitation.

## Decision

- The House of Lords ruled in favour of the prisoners, declaring the total ban on journalist visits unlawful.
- The court held that fundamental rights, such as free speech, cannot be curtailed without clear statutory language.
- The Prison Act 1952 was found not to provide sufficiently clear authority for the Home Secretary to impose such a sweeping restriction.
- The decision emphasized that Parliament must use specific and unambiguous language if it intends to limit basic rights.

## Legal Principles

- Established the “principle of legality”: unless Parliament uses clear and express words, legislation will not be interpreted as overriding fundamental rights.
- Courts have an obligation to interpret statutes, where possible, in a manner consistent with fundamental rights.
- The judiciary plays a critical role in safeguarding basic liberties and ensuring legislative actions respect essential rights.
- The recognition that free speech, especially its role in exposing potential miscarriages of justice and supporting media scrutiny, is a core component of justice and democracy.

## Conclusion

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 stands as a leading authority confirming that fundamental rights cannot be overridden by ambiguous statutory provisions, entrenching the principle of legality and reinforcing the courts’ duty to protect basic liberties, particularly freedom of expression in the context of criminal justice.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 (HL)