On 19 June, Mr Justice Chamberlain handed down judgment following a hearing in the case of Al-Libi v Home Office & Others (Case No: KB-2022-004569). The judgment concerned an incident in January 2026 in which GLD staff entered the office of the Claimant’s Special Advocate and seized a range of sensitive material from her safe, including legally privileged documents, which had previously been disclosed in a separate case. The Special Advocate had successfully used the material in CLOSED disclosure hearings in the Claimant’s case.
Chamberlain J held that the duties under CPR Part 31 apply to Special Advocates and accordingly CLOSED documents provided to Special Advocates pursuant to CPR Part 82 may be used only for the purposes of the proceedings in which it has been provided, save in the exceptional cases referred to in CPR 31.22(1)(a), (b) and (c). Chamberlain J made clear that nothing in the judgment is intended to prevent a Special Advocate instructed in one case using his or her knowledge of material from that case to identify a breach of the Government party’s disclosure obligations, or of the duty of candour, in another case. If this issue arises, the proper course (in a case where the Government party does not consent to the use of the material in the second case) is to seek the Court’s permission.
With regard to the incident, Chamberlain J concluded that the instruction to retrieve the CLOSED material provided to the Special Advocate came from lawyers at SIS (MI6). He declined to conclude that the SIS personnel acted for an improper purpose in seeking the return of the Special Advocate’s documents. Nonetheless, the conduct of those involved in retrieving the documents, and the way in which the documents were retrieved, gave rise and continues to give rise to serious concerns. The judgment identifies five respects in which the conduct of GLD, SIS and SASO was unsatisfactory.
The judgment noted that the documents before the Court evidenced a perception on the part of MI5, SIS and (to a lesser extent) GLD that the Special Advocate was acting improperly, even to the extent of suggesting that she ought to be referred to her vetting officer, professional regulator or the Attorney General. Chamberlain J recorded that at the hearing, counsel for the Defendants confirmed, in response to a pointed question from the Court, that the Defendants were no longer suggesting that the Special Advocate had acted improperly in any way. The Court concluded that there was never, at any stage, any basis for such a suggestion.
The Court adjourned its final decision on whether any further steps ought to be taken in respect of the incident until the completion of a Lessons Learned exercise, which is now underway within Government.
Jesse Nicholls acted for the Claimant, led by Ben Jaffey KC, instructed by Megan Phillips and Mavi Salvatore of Bhatt Murphy. James Stansfeld acted for the Defendants, with Jonathan Worboys, led by Rory Phillips KC.
Read the full judgment here.