BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
Commissioners, made up of current and recently retired High Court, Court
of Appeal and Supreme Court Judges; a Technical Advisory Panel made up
of scientific experts; and almost fifty official staff, including inspectors,
lawyers and communications experts.
F. Reviews of interception operations by the intelligence service
1. Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (“ISC”):
July 2013 Statement on GCHQ’s alleged interception of
communications under the US PRISM programme
139. The ISC was originally established by the ISA to examine the
policy, administration and expenditure of MI5, MI6, and GCHQ. Since the
introduction of the Justice and Security Act 2013, however, the ISC was
expressly given the status of a Committee of Parliament; it was provided
with greater powers; and its remit was increased to include oversight of
operational activity and the wider intelligence and security activities of
Government. Pursuant to sections 1-4 of the Justice and Security Act 2013,
it consisted of nine members drawn from both Houses of Parliament, and, in
the exercise of their functions, those members were routinely given access
to highly classified material.
140. Following the Edward Snowden revelations, the ISC conducted an
investigation into GCHQ’s access to the content of communications
intercepted under the United States’ PRISM programme, the legal
framework governing access, and the arrangements GCHQ had with its
overseas counterpart for sharing information. In the course of the
investigation, the ISC took detailed evidence from GCHQ and discussed the
programme with the NSA.
141. The ISC concluded that allegations that GCHQ had circumvented
United Kingdom law by using the PRISM programme to access the content
of private communications were unfounded as GCHQ had complied with its
statutory duties contained in the ISA. It further found that in each case in
which GCHQ had sought information from the United States, a warrant for
interception, signed by a Government Minister, had already been in place.
2. Privacy and security: a modern and transparent legal framework
142. Following its statement in July 2013, the ISC conducted a more indepth inquiry into the full range of the intelligence services’ capabilities. Its
report, which contained an unprecedented amount of information about the
intelligence services’ intrusive capabilities, was published on 12 March
2015.
143. The ISC was satisfied that the United Kingdom’s intelligence and
security services did not seek to circumvent the law, including the
requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998, which governed everything
47