RULING ON REDACTION OF GCHQ/13
1. Exhibit GCHQ/13 to the 8th open statement of a GCHQ witness contained a number
of letters relating to the giving of directions to telecommunications operators under s.
94 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (the Act). Those letters were redacted with
the intention of effectively withholding the name of the companies to which
directions under s. 94 had been given. There was an inadvertent failure in the
redaction process by the Respondent, so that in two documents, dated 1998 and 2002,
the name of the company was revealed, or information was disclosed in a form from
which the name of the company could be inferred. The Claimant very properly
promptly informed the Respondents. The Claimant now applies for an order that the
identity of the particular company to which the relevant letters were sent should no
longer be kept secret, but should be openly disclosed in evidence, and thus made
public. The Tribunal heard oral argument, in private, on 1 December 2017 and
decided to dismiss the application, with written reasons to follow.
2. Under Rule 6 (1) of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 the Tribunal is
required to carry out its functions in such a way as to secure that information is not
disclosed to an extent, or in a manner, that is contrary to the public interest, or
prejudicial to, inter alia, national security or the continued discharge of the functions
of any of the intelligence agencies. To that end, notwithstanding the power of the
Tribunal to require disclosure of documents, they may be redacted or, if appropriate,
edited (see Belhadj v Security Service and others IPT/13/132-9H Judgment 18
November 2014 at paragraphs 11-12), before disclosure to other parties.
3. S. 94 (5) of the Act provides that a person to whom a direction is given shall not
disclose, or be required by any enactment or otherwise to disclose, anything done by
virtue of s. 94 if the Secretary of State has notified him that the Secretary of State is
of the opinion that disclosure is against the interests of national security. Each of the
relevant directions contains a statement from the Secretary of State that disclosure of
the direction is against the interests of national security.
Page 3