MR JUSTICE BURTON
Approved Judgment
20.
Human Rights Watch & Ors v SoS for the Foreign &
Commonwealth Office & Ors
The Tribunal’s jurisdiction pursuant to s.65(2) of RIPA, for purposes material to our
consideration, is by s.65(4) that:“The Tribunal is the appropriate forum for any complaint if it
is a complaint by a person who is aggrieved by any
conduct…which he believes –
a) to have taken place in relation to him, to any of his property,
to any communications sent by or to him, or intended for him,
or to his use of any postal service, telecommunication service
or telecommunications system; and
b)… to have been carried out by or on behalf of any of the
intelligence services.”
21.
As to the exercise of that jurisdiction, s.67 provides by subsection (1) that, subject to
subsections (4) and (5), “it shall be the duty of the Tribunal… to consider and
determine any complaint or reference made to them by virtue of section 65(2)(b)”,
and by, subsection (3), “where the Tribunal considers a complaint made to them by
virtue of s.65 (2)(b), it shall be the duty of the Tribunal to investigate” whether the
persons against whom any allegations are made in the complaint have engaged in
relation to the complainant or his property or communications etc in any conduct
falling within s.65(5).
22.
As to the two exceptions referred to in s.67(1), the first is:“(4) The Tribunal shall not be under any duty to hear, consider
or determine any proceedings, complaint or reference if it
appears to them that the bringing of the proceedings, or the
making of the complaint or references are frivolous or
vexatious.”
The second, s.69(5), relates to a one year time bar, with a discretion to
extend.
23.
The Tribunal must thus exercise its jurisdiction, pursuant to the guidance of the
ECtHR, in relation to the admissibility of the applications now before us, both by the
Ten and, in due course, in the light of our conclusions, in respect of the remainder of
the 663.
24.
It is important to pay regard to the fact that all these complaints, in accordance with
the standard form provided by Privacy International, and all by reference to the
Tribunal’s judgment in Privacy/Liberty, direct a case as to both Prism/ Upstream, i.e.
the alleged information-sharing of intelligence obtained by the US authorities under
Prism and Upstream by reference to non-US citizens outside the US, and the s.8(4)
RIPA regime of alleged interception by UK Intelligence Services.
25.
Addressing Prism/Upstream first, they were explained in paragraphs 47 and 48 of
Liberty/Privacy No 1. A request may be made by the Intelligence Services to the US
authorities for (unanalysed) intercepted communications, and associated
communications data obtained by them under Prism/Upstream, only (subject to