BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
126. Section 68(4) provided that where the IPT determined any
complaint it had the power to award compensation and to make such other
orders as it thought fit, including orders quashing or cancelling any warrant
and orders requiring the destruction of any records obtained thereunder
(section 67(7)). In the event that a claim before the IPT was successful, the
IPT was generally required to make a report to the Prime Minister
(section 68(5)).
127. Section 68(1) entitled the IPT to determine its own procedure,
although section 69(1) provided that the Secretary of State could also make
procedural rules.
2. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 (“the Rules”)
128. The Rules were adopted by the Secretary of State to govern various
aspects of the procedure before the IPT.
129. Rule 9 allowed the IPT to hold, at any stage of consideration, oral
hearings at which the complainant could make representations, give
evidence and call witnesses. Although Rule 9 provided that the IPT’s
proceedings, including any oral hearings, were to be conducted in private, in
cases IPT/01/62 and IPT/01/77 the IPT itself decided that, subject to the
general duty imposed by Rule 6 (1) to prevent the disclosure of sensitive
information, it could exercise its discretion in favour of holding an open
hearing. Following this commitment to hold hearings in open when
possible, the IPT has also published its significant rulings on its website,
provided that there is no risk of disclosure of any prejudicial information.
130. Rule 11 allowed the IPT to receive evidence in any form, even
where it would not be admissible in a court of law.
131. Rule 6 required the IPT to carry out its functions in such a way as
to ensure that information was not disclosed that was contrary to the public
interest or prejudicial to national security, the prevention or detection of
serious crime, the economic well-being of the United Kingdom or the
continued discharge of the functions of any of the intelligence services.
3. Counsel to the Tribunal
132. The IPT could appoint Counsel to the Tribunal to make
submissions on behalf of applicants in hearings at which they could not be
represented. In the Liberty case, Counsel to the Tribunal described his role
as follows:
“Counsel to the Tribunal performs a different function [from special advocates in
closed proceedings conducted before certain tribunals], akin to that of amicus curiae.
His or her function is to assist the Tribunal in whatever way the Tribunal directs.
Sometimes (e.g. in relation to issues on which all parties are represented), the Tribunal
will not specify from what perspective submissions are to be made. In these
circumstances, counsel will make submissions according to his or her own analysis of
the relevant legal or factual issues, seeking to give particular emphasis to points not
45