BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
necessary for facilitating the carrying out of any of the interception
functions of the Secretary of State; it was necessary for facilitating the
carrying out of any functions of the IC Commissioner or of the IPT; it was
necessary to ensure that a person conducting a criminal prosecution had the
information needed to determine what was required by his or her duty to
secure the fairness of the prosecution; or it was necessary for the
performance of any duty imposed on any person under public records
legislation.
81. Section 15(5) required the arrangements in place to secure
compliance with section 15(2) to include such arrangements as the Secretary
of State considered necessary for securing that every copy of the material or
data that was made was stored, for so long as it was retained, in a secure
manner.
82. Pursuant to section 15(6), the arrangements to which section 15(1)
referred were not necessary to secure that the requirements of section 15(2)
and (3) were satisfied in so far as they related to any of the intercepted
material or related communications data, or any copy of any such material
or data, possession of which had been surrendered to any authorities of a
country or territory outside the United Kingdom. However, such
arrangements were required to secure, in the case of every such warrant, that
possession of the intercepted material and data and of copies of the material
or data were surrendered to authorities of a country or territory outside the
United Kingdom only if the requirements of section 15(7) were satisfied.
Section 15(7) provided:
“The requirements of this subsection are satisfied in the case of a warrant if it
appears to the Secretary of State–
a.
that requirements corresponding to those of subsections (2) and (3) will
apply, to such extent (if any) as the Secretary of State thinks fit, in relation
to any of the intercepted material or related communications data
possession of which, or of any copy of which, is surrendered to the
authorities in question; and
b.
that restrictions are in force which would prevent, to such extent (if any) as
the Secretary of State thinks fit, the doing of anything in, for the purposes
of or in connection with any proceedings outside the United Kingdom
which would result in such a disclosure as, by virtue of section 17, could
not be made in the United Kingdom.”
83. Section 17 of RIPA provided that as a general rule no evidence could
be adduced, disclosure made or other thing done in connection with legal
proceedings which would disclose the content or related communications
data of an intercepted communication.
(b) Section 16
84. Section 16 set out additional safeguards in relation to the
interception of “external” communications under section 8(4) warrants.
21