Prison Documents

Dear Mr Houchin,

I am writing to you in connection with my recent experiences as an inmate of Barlinnie prison, where I served four days of a seven day sentence imposed upon me for my refusal to pay a £30 fine. This was from 6 - 9 April. My prison number was 133977, cell No.34 in A Block.

I wish to make a number of observations which may provide you with a better understanding of the situation from a prisoner’s perspective, and hopefully thereby help you to achieve a better ordering of the prison. You must be conscious of the fact that many inmates are unwilling to express their opinions through lack of confidence, feelings of inadequacy in writing skills, or apprehension about the possible outcome of any such efforts. I feel therefore that I am writing not only on my own behalf, but also in the interests of many others in prison.

I must also add that I write in the knowledge that I shall undoubtedly return to Barlinnie several times in the future. Allow me to explain this statement, and the background to my refusal to pay the paltry fine of £30.

I am a member of a group known as Trident Ploughshares. Along with many others, I am pledged to take peaceful, non-violent, direct action against the deployment of Trident by the British state. We do this because Trident is manifestly a criminal and illegal weapon of mass destruction. Each one of Britain’s four Trident nuclear submarines carries 148 atomic bombs. Each of these bombs is 8 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, where the final death toll was approximately 200,000. These submarines are on constant patrol in full alert, ready to fire at short notice. It is obvious that Trident violates the fundamental principles of ius in bello (justice or right conduct during the waging of a war) which demand discrimination (ie. respect for civilian immunity), proportionality, third party immunity, and consideration of the environmental consequences of actions taken. We are conscious of our obligations under the Nuremberg Principles which stipulate that it is the duty of ordinary citizens to uphold international humanitarian law. Blind obedience to the dictates of the state is not an option, or an excuse for complicity in the state’s plans to commit mass murder. It wasn’t in Nazi Germany, and it isn’t in nuclear Britain.

We had hoped that the courts would see the logic of our position, and not act on the simplistic principle of ’if it’s official, it must be legal ’. The District Courts repeatedly refused to listen to our arguments. However, in October 99, we achieved some success when in Greenock, Sheriff Margaret Gimblett acquitted three women involved in damaging Maytime, a Trident support vessel. She demonstrated impartiality and honesty by listening to the evidence presented, and coming to the only logical conclusion possible. Tragically, on the 30th March, the High Court overruled her decision in a judgment that was perverse, illogical and dishonest.

So much for the background to my actions. I turn now to the specific points I wish to raise regarding my sojourn in Barlinnie.

  At my reception I explained to the medical staff that I had had a double coronary by-pass, that I was prone to trachyitis and bronchitis, and for these reasons felt entitled to insist on a non-smoking environment in my cell. This was noted on my medical form, and I was told to inform the Hall Officer of these facts. This I did, but my request was brusquely dismissed as being impossible. I consequently spent 23 hours a day with a cellmate who smoked constantly, even waking up several times during the night to do so. I feel that this was a direct assault on my health, and I am convinced that it contravened my basic human rights as defined in European Union law. Under the circumstances I took no further action, but determined that in the future I would seek legal redress were I subjected to similar abuse again.
  The system of ’slopping out’ is obnoxious, and manifestly an intolerable health risk. It must contravene human rights as well as basic hygiene to be forced to defecate, urinate, and eat food in the one cramped space without any facilities for washing, and to have human waste kept in this same confined area. Nobody deserves such barbaric treatment. Like all the other inmates of Barlinnie, I was sent to prison to be deprived of my liberty, not of my dignity or self-respect as a human being. Slopping out is a degrading and humiliating process. If you have any doubts about this, I invite you to experience the system for yourself.
  Attempts by my partner to arrange a visit were thwarted by the fact that whenever she phoned, nobody answered.
  My work in the peace movement involves inter alia keeping abreast of current events through newspapers, responding to these by writing, and doing research by reading. Throughout my stay I was denied access to newspapers, books, or writing material. There is no justification for this prohibition. It was not part of my sentence to be thus deprived of reading material.

  On a relatively minor point, when I was issued with prison uniform I was given jeans and a shirt which were of the suitable size. The underwear however seemed to be issued on a ’one size for all’ basis. I am 63 years of age and considerably larger that the young men who were my fellow convicts. I spent my time waddling around with my underpants below my crotch, stretched between each leg of my trousers. They were about half the size need to circumvent my regrettably large waist. Likewise my vest was half way up my chest all the time. Not very comfortable!

In general, I found the most repellent aspect of my imprisonment to be the total lack of privacy. To be compelled to spend 23 hours a day in close confinement with another person, sharing every bodily function with them, was unpleasant in the extreme. More than anything I yearned to be alone. Solitary confinement seemed my idea of very bliss. In such solitude, prison would offer me a valuable opportunity for study, meditation and prayer. I must repeat my previous point. Imprisonment should mean loss of freedom, not loss of all privacy. That is an additional and unwarranted affliction.

However, I would not like to appear totally negative, and I wish to take this opportunity also to express my appreciation of the positive aspects of my imprisonment. In spite of popular rumour and my own apprehensions, the guards were relaxed and unaggressive - some indeed were downright friendly. One officer had pity on my obvious withdrawal pains, and took the trouble to acquired ’a book’ for me - for which I was and am very grateful.

I realise that some of the above problems I have outlined are outwith you control. Slopping out, for example, is perpetuated by lack of funding from central government, which can spend one hundred and fifty million pounds a year on Trident, but cannot find funds to provide basic toilet facilities for prisoners. However, I must conclude by respectfully making certain specific demands for my future imprisonment.

  I really must insist on a smoke free cell.
  I should be allowed to bring books and writing material with me.
  I should have access to newspapers and books.
  A helpful and cooperative approach should be taken with those wishing to visit me. They are entirely innocent, and should not be penalised for association with a convict.

I trust that you will accept my observations with the spirit of good will with which I have penned them. I appreciate that yours is a uniquely difficult profession, because you are dealing with people who, without exception, do not wish to be under your authority. No one wants to be in prison. Resentment and anger are potentially ever present dangers.

All over the prison I saw notices affirming a ’no violence’ policy. Perhaps if some of the repressive and destructive aspects of the penal system were addressed, there might be less chance of a build up of repressed anger. Slopping out, and the sheer maddening boredom of isolation in a cell are of themselves sources of resentment and violence. I am sure you appreciate the cogency of these observations through your own years of experience in the prison service.

May I conclude by thanking you for taking the time and trouble to read this submission. I look forward with considerable interest to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Brian Quail, April 2001.

PS. A copy of this letter and of your reply will be sent to: my MP George Galloway, my MSP Pauline McNeil, my solicitor Joanne MacDonald, fellow members of Trident Ploughshares, and other interested peace activists.

Printer friendly version

Home | Top