Menu My portfolio: 0

Court: Investigatory Powers Tribunal

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 [2015] 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.

The regime for dealing with private communications of those locating in the UK no longer contravened ECHR, arts 8 and 10

Liberty & Ors v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office & Ors [2015] UKIPTrib 13_77-H

The court held that prior to the disclosure made and referred to within the judgment, and that of 8 Dec 2014, the regime covering the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or Upstream, contravened arts 8 & 10. However, the court held that the regime now complied with arts 8 & 10

Intellegence Services information gathering programmes in USA held to be lawful

Liberty & Ors v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office & Ors [2014] UKIPTrib 13_77-H

The claimants alleged unlawfulness pursuant to ECHR, art 8 of certain assumed activities of the Intelligence Services in relation to information gathering programmes in the US. Held: the activities in question were lawful. Matthew Ryder QC, Edward Craven and Dan Squires were involved in this case.

Disclosure under the Investigatory Powers Tribunals Rules 2000 is correct

Belhaj & Ors v Security Services & Ors IPT/13/132-9H

This was an interim hearing to deal with requests from the claimants for further disclosure from the respondents. The claimants complained about the form of disclosure from the respondents. Held; dismissing the claimants’ application for redacted documents, the Tribunal noted that under the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 there was nothing which proscribed the manner […]