MR JUSTICE BURTON
Approved Judgment
Belhadj and Security Service
shall give that authority or person an opportunity to make
representations on the proposed order.”
9.
The Claimants seek:
i)
compensation:
ii)
destruction of any such LPP material intercepted or obtained:
iii)
injunctions.
In addition Mr Tomlinson QC on behalf of Amnesty seeks orders for procedures to be
introduced by the Respondents, including the introduction of an independent lawyer
assessment process, as set out in paragraph 10(3), (4) and (5) of his submissions of 3
March 2015.
10.
With regard to the issue of injunctions (and the procedures proposed by Amnesty),
quite apart from submitting that any such remedies would be inappropriate and/or
unnecessary, the Respondents point out the context of the present hearing, namely, as
set out in paragraph 2 above, that the Respondents are and have been, in accordance
with their confirmation given to the Tribunal, working, including the involvement of
the Interception Commissioner, on an urgent review of their LPP policies and
procedures, as to which consultation (in which Amnesty and indeed the Belhadj
Claimants’ representatives have been free to participate) has been taking place.
11.
We permitted written submissions to be put in by the Law Society by way of
emphasising the importance of the legal protection for LPP material, from Simon
Salzedo QC, which accorded with the submissions made by the Claimants in that
regard. It should be noted that the Bar of Northern Ireland and the Faculty of
Advocates of Scotland considered intervening in these proceedings, but did not
proceed when the concession narrated at paragraph 2 was made. The Tribunal has
had the benefit of written submissions from counsel for the Tribunal, Mr Glasson QC.
He attended closed hearings, and played his role in safeguarding the interests of the
Claimants.
12.
The Tribunal has, in the light of the oral and written submissions made to it, carried
out the task, as Mr Jaffey recorded in paragraphs 4, 5 and 54 of his Submissions of 3
March 2015, of determining whether there has in fact been any relevant interception
of the Claimant’s privileged communications, as defined in the Tribunal’s Order, at
paragraphs 3 and 4. It has made its Determination of even date as a result of its
investigation, and this judgment seeks to clarify what the Tribunal considered to be
the correct approach to adopt in making that Determination. It has not been
necessary, in the light of the Determination (particularly at paragraph 8), to address all
the Claimant’s arguments.
13.
There was no dispute between the parties as to the importance of protecting and
preserving the concept of legal and professional privilege, as clarified or enunciated
particularly in R v Derby Justices ex p B [1996] AC 487 at 507, R (Morgan
Grenfell) v Special Commissioners [2003] 1 AC 563 at paragraph 39 and R v Grant
[2006] QB 60 at paragraphs 52 and 54. The Respondents relied on the following
propositions, by reference to the authorities to which we have been referred: