of the Revised Code states that advice should be sought
from a legal advisor before any further dissemination
takes place; the retention or dissemination of legally
privileged material should be accompanied by a clear
warning that it is subject to legal privilege; it should be
safeguarded by taking “reasonable steps” to ensure
there is no possibility of it becoming available, or it
contents becoming known, to any person whose
possession of it might prejudice any criminal or civil
proceedings; and finally, any dissemination to an
outside body should be notified to the relevant
Commissioner or Inspector during his next inspection.
139. These provisions, although containing some
significant safeguards to protect the interests of persons
affected by the surveillance of legal consultations, are
to be contrasted with the more detailed provisions in
Part I of RIPA and the Interception of Communications
Code of Practice, which the Court approved in Kennedy
(cited above, §§ 42 – 49). In particular, in relation to
intercepted material there are provisions in Part I and
the Code of Practice limiting the number of persons to
whom the material is made available and restricting the
extent to which it is disclosed and copied; imposing a
broad duty on those involved in interception to keep
everything in the intercepted material secret;
prohibiting disclosure to persons who do not hold the
necessary security clearance and to persons who do not
“need to know” about the material; criminalising the
disclosure of intercept material with an offence
punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment; requiring
intercepted material to be stored securely; and
requiring that intercepted material be securely
destroyed as soon as it is no longer required for any of
the authorised purposes.
140. Paragraph 9.3 of the Revised Code does provide
that each public authority must ensure that
arrangements are in place for the secure handling,
storage and destruction of material obtained through
directed or intrusive surveillance. In the present case
the relevant arrangements are contained in the PSNI
Service Procedure on Covert Surveillance of Legal
Consultations and the Handling of Legally Privileged
Material. The Administrative Court accepted that taking
together the 2010 Order, the Revised Code and the
PSNI Service Procedure Implementing Code, the
arrangements in place for the use, retention and
destruction of retained material in the context of legal
consultations was compliant with the Article 8 rights of