MR JUSTICE BURTON
Approved Judgment
Human Rights Watch & Ors v SoS for the Foreign &
Commonwealth Office & Ors
types of breaches that may have occurred, by reference to the bringing of equal pay
and other claims in other tribunals. However, as he recognised himself in argument,
that would in no way resolve the need for individual consideration by the Agencies as
to each Claimant, to see whether there has been intelligence-sharing or interception of
any of his or her communications, and if so in each case to trace through what
occurred in relation to any information so obtained.
39.
We are satisfied that there is no shortcut available which would prevent the full
consideration of each individual claim, if we so direct it. The Respondents in their
Skeleton pointed to what they called the “important recognition” by Mr Jaffey in his
paragraph 7, referred to above, of the need for a “proportionate and pragmatic
solution” for addressing the “current influx of claims”. They state as follows:“13.… What is suggested is that a group of lead claims should
go first to identify the type of breaches which might have
occurred, followed by a “streamlined approach to dealing with
the remainder”. But that is precisely what has already
occurred. The Tribunal in the Liberty/Privacy proceedings has
already considered the circumstances of 10 human
rights/privacy campaigning organisations. It has pronounced
on the legality of the Regimes and made case-specific findings
in all cases, including in two cases where technical breaches
had occurred. That enabled the IPT to highlight areas of
concern in respect of which steps were necessary to ensure that
such breaches never occur again. The Prime Minister and the
Commissioner were accordingly made aware of the situation.
14. It is also to be noted that this part of the Claimants’ case
must necessarily proceed on the basis that persons making a
complaint to the IPT are not simply entitled without more to
have their individual circumstances examined and determined.
The question on that basis is thus where, not whether, to draw
and proportionate and pragmatic line before declining to
consider individual cases.”
40.
The Respondents continue:“17… the Claimants’ submissions fail to recognise the
importance of the fact that these claims have been brought as
part of a deliberate campaign with the principle purpose of
discovering whether GCHQ held information about
individuals/organisations. Such a campaign very obviously has
resource implications both for the Agencies and for the IPT
itself. In that regard, whilst the claims may or may not qualify
for dismissal solely on the grounds that they are frivolous or
vexatious (see s.67(4) of RIPA 2000), it is nevertheless highly
relevant that the campaign has some features of vexatiousness
which should feed into the overall analysis as to how the claims
are dealt with and particularly as regards the exercise of the
Tribunal’s remedial discretion.