28
KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
strictly necessary to do so and the restriction is counterbalanced by judicial procedures
which protect the interests of the Complainants ...”
95. Finally, as regards the absence of reasons following a decision that
the complaint is unsuccessful, the IPT noted:
“190. The Tribunal conclude that, properly interpreted in context on ordinary
principles of domestic law, rule 13 and section 68(4) of RIPA do not apply to prevent
publication of the reasons for the rulings of the Tribunal on the preliminary issues on
matters of procedural law, as they are not a 'determination' of the proceedings brought
before them or of the complaint made to them within the meaning of those provisions.
Those provisions concern decisions of the Tribunal which bring the claim or
complaint to an end, either by a determination of the substantive claim or complaint
on its merits ...
191. ... In the circumstances there can be publication of the reasons for legal rulings
on preliminary issues, but, so far as determinations are concerned, the Tribunal are
satisfied that section 68(4) and rule 13 are valid and binding and that the distinction
between information given to the successful complainants and that given to
unsuccessful complainants (where the [neither confirm nor deny] policy must be
preserved) is necessary and justifiable.”
96. In a second ruling on preliminary issues of law in the British-Irish
Rights Watch and others case, which involved external communications
(i.e. communications between the United Kingdom and abroad), the IPT
issued its findings on the complaint in that case. The issue for consideration
was identified as:
“3. ... whether ... 'the process of filtering intercepted telephone calls made from the
UK to overseas telephones ... breaches Article 8(2) [of the European Convention on
Human Rights] because it is not 'in accordance with the law' ...”
97. Given that the challenge in the case related solely to the lawfulness
of the filtering process as set out in the RIPA legislation, the IPT issued a
public ruling which explained the reasons for its findings in the case. In its
ruling, it examined the relevant legislative provisions and concluded that
they were sufficiently accessible and foreseeable to be in accordance with
the law.
98. As the applicant's case demonstrates, once general legal issues have
been determined, if the IPT is required to consider the specific facts of the
case, and in particular whether interception has taken place, any such
consideration will take place in private. Rule 6 prevents the applicant
participating in this stage of proceedings.