BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
5. Statement of Charles Farr
97. In his witness statement prepared for the Liberty proceedings (see
paragraph 40 above), Charles Farr indicated that, beyond the details set out
in RIPA, the 2010 IC Code, and the draft IC 2016 Code (which had at that
stage been published for consultation), the full details of the sections 15
and 16 safeguards were kept confidential. He had personally reviewed the
arrangements and was satisfied that they could not safely be put in the
public domain without undermining the effectiveness of the interception
methods. However, the arrangements were made available to the IC
Commissioner who was required by RIPA to keep them under review.
Furthermore, each intercepting agency was required to keep a record of the
arrangements in question and any breach had to be reported to the IC
Commissioner.
6. National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security
Review 2015: A Secure and Prosperous United Kingdom
98. In this review the National Security Council (“NSC”) stated that its
priorities over the next five years would be to:
“Tackle terrorism head-on at home and abroad in a tough and comprehensive way,
counter extremism and challenge the poisonous ideologies that feed it. We will remain
a world leader in cyber security. We will deter state-based threats. We will respond to
crises rapidly and effectively and build resilience at home and abroad.
Help strengthen the rules-based international order and its institutions, encouraging
reform to enable further participation of growing powers. We will work with our
partners to reduce conflict, and to promote stability, good governance and human
rights.
Promote our prosperity, expanding our economic relationship with growing powers
such as India and China, helping to build global prosperity, investing in innovation
and skills, and supporting UK defence and security exports.”
7. Judgment of the IPT of 29 March 2015 in Belhadj and Others
v. Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service, Government
Communications Headquarters, the Secretary of State for the Home
Department, and the Secretary of State for the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office, IPT/13/132-9/H and IPT/14/86/CH
99. The applicants in this case complained of breaches of Articles 6, 8
and 14 of the Convention arising from the alleged interception of their
legally privileged communications. In so far as Amnesty International, in
the course of the Liberty proceedings, complained about the adequacy of the
arrangements for the protection of material subject to legal professional
privilege (“LPP”), those complaints were “hived off” to be dealt with in this
case, and Amnesty International was joined as a claimant (see paragraph 52
above).
37