concluded that Weber (1) to (3) were satisfied, but that Weber (4) to
(6) were not. We shall need to address that conclusion, unfavourable
to the Respondents, by the Court.
75.
The material provisions for consideration in respect of the period from August
2009 to February 2015 are as follows:
i)
The statutory provision in relation to GCHQ, which is obviously
fundamental. This appears in s.4 of ISA.
“4 The Director of GCHQ.
(1) The operations of GCHQ shall continue to be under
the control of a Director appointed by the Secretary of
State.
(2) The Director shall be responsible for the efficiency
of GCHQ and it shall be his duty to ensure—
(a)
that there are arrangements for securing that
no information is obtained by GCHQ except so
far as necessary for the proper discharge of its
functions and that no information is disclosed
by it except so far as necessary for that purpose
or for the purpose of any criminal proceedings;
and
(b)
that GCHQ does not take any action to further
the interests of any United Kingdom political
party.
...
(4) The Director shall make an annual report on the
work of GCHQ to the Prime Minister and the Secretary
of State and may at any time report to either of them on
any matter relating to its work.”
There is a cross reference to s.4 in s.5(2)(c) of ISA, set out in paragraph 4
above together with s.6, which is also relevant.
ii)
The other related statutory provisions set out in paragraph 6(ii), (iii)
and (iv) above: disclosure or use by an employee of GCHQ of
information in breach of a relevant arrangement within s.4(2)(a) of the
ISA above set out would constitute a criminal offence pursuant to the
OSA.
iii)
The Property Code, being the published arrangements. Relevant to
Weber (4) to (6) are:
“8.3 The following information relating to all
authorisations for property interference should be
centrally retrievable for at least three years: