3 main security services.
- Security Service
- Secret Intelligence Service
- GCHQ
Malone v UK.
- placed all security services under statutory footing
- UK breached art8 as no prescription in law for intercepting communication
- they had no scope or manner of exercising relevant discretion
R(Mohamed) v Sec of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
- appeal to prevent evidence being disclosed due to means of torture used to extract it
- held that such documents could be disclosed
- this was in accordance with natural justice
What 3 statutes where introduced post Malone?
Security Service Act 1989 - MI5
Intelligence and Service Act 1994 - MI6, GCHQ
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
When and why were security services placed under statutory footing?
Council of Europe recommends that they must operate under statutory basis as a means of accountability.
Post Malone v UK (1979)
When was the investigatory powers tribunal established?
- Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
What powers were created by the passing of the Justice and Security Act 2013?
Intelligence and Security Committee can make information requests to the:
Director-Gen of Security Service
Chief of SIS
Director of GCHQ
When was the Intelligence and Security Committee established?
- Intelligence and Services Act 1994
What judicial oversight is provided for in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ?
2 commissioners:
Intelligence Service Commissioner:
- external oversight of use of intrusive powers of UK intelligence services
Interception of Communications Commissioner:
- review interception of communications as well as request disclose/acquisition
What is the purpose of the IPT?
Only tribunal available for complain of security service breaching rights.
Individual complaints about agencies conduct towards them or interception of communications
Is the IPT compatible with ECHR? (case)
Kennedy v UK
- applicant argued decision of no determination was incompatible with art6
- held that art6 is not an absolute right
- IPT is compatible with ECHR
- this specialised tribunal can exclude public proceedings for reasons of national security
Verdict/s of IPT?
- determination
- no determination
A v B.
- A sought permission to publish a book about the Service, B refused
- A sought judicial review: art 10 violation
- Held that IPT was only forum to raise complaint, as provided for by RIPA 2000
Liberty & Others v Security Service, SIS, GCHQ.
- First case of a successful determination made in the IPT Tribunal
- NGO went to IPT, claimed bulk interception breached art 8 and 10
Caroline Lucas.
- argued bulk interceptions violated ‘Wilson doctrine’
- IPT held that conventions are not binding
- assured applicant that sufficient safeguards are in place
- only in extreme circumstances would constituency conversations be monitored
News Group Newspapers Limited v MET Commissioner. (plebgate)
- under art10, journalist are not required to reveal sources
- this is not an absolute right
- 3 part test applied
- s22 of RIPA was necessary & proportionate
- identifying sources in this instance, was lawful
R (Davis & Watson) v Sec of State for Home Dep
- DRIPA 2014 was held to be inconsistent with EU law
- disapplied the act
