BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
fully developed by the parties. At other times (in particular where one or more
interests are not represented), the Tribunal may invite its counsel to make submissions
from a particular perspective (normally the perspective of the party or parties whose
interests are not otherwise represented).”
133. This description was accepted and endorsed by the IPT.
4. R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory
Powers Tribunal and others [2019] UKSC 22
134. In this judgment, which was handed down on 15 May 2019, the
Supreme Court held that section 67(8) of RIPA did not preclude judicial
review of a decision of the IPT.
E. Oversight
135. Part IV of RIPA provided for the appointment by the Prime
Minister of an Interception of Communications Commissioner (“the
IC Commissioner”) and an Intelligence Services Commissioner charged
with supervising the activities of the intelligence services.
136. The IC Commissioner was responsible for keeping under review
the interception of communications and the acquisition and disclosure of
communications data by intelligence services, police forces and other public
authorities. In undertaking his review of surveillance practices, the
IC Commissioner and his inspectors had access to all relevant documents,
including closed materials, and all those involved in interception activities
had a duty to disclose to him any material he required. The obligation on
intercepting agencies to keep records ensured that the IC Commissioner had
effective access to details of surveillance activities undertaken. After each
inspection a report was sent to the head of the public authority which
contained formal recommendations and which required the public authority
to report back within two months to confirm whether the recommendations
had been implemented or what progress had been made. The Commissioner
reported to the Prime Minister on a half-yearly basis with respect to the
carrying out of his functions and prepared an annual report. This report was
a public document (subject to the non-disclosure of confidential annexes)
which was laid before Parliament.
137. The Intelligence Services Commissioner provided further
independent external oversight of the use of the intrusive powers of the
intelligence services and parts of the Ministry of Defence. He also submitted
annual reports to the Prime Minister, which were laid before Parliament.
138. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (see paragraphs 183-190
below) repealed these provisions, in so far as they related to England,
Scotland and Wales, and in September 2017 the Investigatory Powers
Commissioner’s Office (“IPCO”) took over responsibility for the oversight
of investigatory powers. The IPCO consists of around fifteen Judicial
46