BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
required under Articles 8 and 10. It therefore made a declaration that prior
to the disclosures:
“23. ... [T]he regime governing the soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by
UK authorities of private communications of individuals located in the UK, which
have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or ... Upstream,
contravened Articles 8 or 10 ECHR, but now complies.”
D. The IPT’s third judgment of 22 June 2015 as amended by its letter
of 1 July 2015
57. The third judgment of the IPT, published on 22 June 2015,
determined whether the applicants’ communications obtained under PRISM
or Upstream had been solicited, received, stored or transmitted by the
United Kingdom authorities in contravention of Articles 8 and/or 10 of the
Convention; and whether the applicants’ communications had been
intercepted, viewed, stored or transmitted by the United Kingdom
authorities so as to amount to unlawful conduct or in contravention of
Articles 8 and/or 10.
58. The IPT made no determination in favour of eight of the ten
applicants. In line with its usual practice where it did not find in favour of a
claimant, it did not confirm whether or not their communications had been
intercepted. However, the IPT made determinations in relation to two
applicants. The identity of one of the organisations was wrongly noted in
the judgment and the error was corrected by the IPT’s letter of 1 July 2015.
59. In respect of Amnesty International, the IPT found that email
communications had been lawfully and proportionately intercepted and
accessed pursuant to section 8(4) of RIPA but that the time-limit for
retention permitted under the internal policies of GCHQ had been
overlooked and the material had therefore been retained for longer than
permitted. However, the IPT was satisfied that the material had not been
accessed after the expiry of the relevant retention time-limit and that the
breach could be characterised as a technical one. It amounted nonetheless to
a breach of Article 8 and GCHQ was ordered to destroy any of the
communications which had been retained for longer than the relevant period
and to deliver one hard copy of the documents within seven days to the IC
Commissioner to retain for five years in case they were needed for any
further legal proceedings. GCHQ was also ordered to provide a closed
report within fourteen days confirming the destruction of the documents. No
award of compensation was made.
60. In respect of the Legal Resources Centre, the IPT found that
communications from an email address associated with the applicant had
been intercepted and selected for examination under a section 8(4) warrant.
Although it was satisfied the interception was lawful and proportionate and
that selection for examination was proportionate, the IPT found that the
16