Court: Investigatory Powers Tribunal
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Ors and another case  UKIPTrib 14_85-CH
The tribunal held open inter partes hearings to determine a list of issues to be resolved, as part of proceedings brought by the claimants challenging the lawfulness of the GCHQ’s alleged use of computer network exploitation or ‘hacking’, which may have affected the claimants.
Damages were not required to provide just satisfaction to a journalist who had had his communication data unlawfully intercepted
News Group Newspapers v Commissioner of Police  UKIPTrib 14_176-H
No compensation awarded to The Sun reporter after police illegally viewed his call records. The declaration of unlawfulness was sufficient remedy.
News Group Newspapers Ltd & Ors v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  UKIPTrib 14
Challenge to four authorisations under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s 22, which enabled the police to obtain communications data in order to ascertain the sources of information obtained by the claimant journalists.
Liberty & Ors v Government Communications Headquarters & Ors IPT/13/77/H
The IPT has ruled, inter alia, that the intelligence services acted unlawfully in the way they handled intercepted private communications of two civil liberties groups. In the first instance, EIPR’s communications were intercepted, accessed and then unlawfully “retained for materially longer than permitted”. In the second, LRC’s communications were intercepted, then unlawfully selected for examination in contravention of internal procedures that were “not followed in this case”. It was the services’ failure to follow their own procedures that resulted in the unlawful conduct.
No damages for ECHR, art 8 violation by GCHQ, as intercepted legally privileged material had not been used to prejudicial effect
Belhadj & Ors v Secret Sevice & Ors  UKIPTrib 13_132-H
This case concerned whether the claimants’ legally privileged communications have in fact been intercepted/obtained. The Tribunal issued a determination only in favour of the 3rd Claimant, Saadi, after finding 2 documents containing legal professional privilege material held by the agencies, namely by GCHQ. It determined that there was an infringement of art 8 but there should be no award of compensation.