4
KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
makes certain submissions about the way in which these proceedings ought to be
conducted ...”
11. The applicant requested specific directions regarding the conduct of
the proceedings in order to ensure the protection of his Convention rights
under Article 6 § 1. In particular, he requested that his arguments and
evidence be presented at an oral hearing; that all hearings be conducted in
public; that there be mutual disclosure and inspection between the parties of
all witness statements and evidence upon which parties sought to rely and
exchange of skeleton arguments in relation to planned legal submissions;
that evidence of each party be heard in the presence of the other party or
their legal representatives, with oral evidence being open to crossexamination by the other party; that any opinion received from a
Commissioner be disclosed to the parties, who would have the opportunity
to make oral representations in light of it; that each party be able to apply
for a derogation from any of the above in relation to a particular piece of
evidence; and that, following its final determination, the IPT state its
findings and give reasons for its conclusions on each relevant issue. He
argued that to the extent that the IPT's rules of procedure (see paragraphs 84
to 87 below) prevented the directions sought, they were incompatible with
his right to a fair hearing.
12. The Grounds of Claim and Complaint referred to the applicant's
belief that his communications were being intercepted and that any warrant
in place was being continually renewed.
13. Paragraph 13 of the Grounds of Claim and Complaint noted:
“So far as the proceedings are brought in reliance on HRA s. 7(1)(a) or (b), the
Complainant submits that:
(a) The interception, and retention or other processing of intercept product, by any
of the Respondents amounts to an interference with the Complainant's right to respect
for private life and correspondence protected by Article 8(1) of the Convention;
(b) The interception and processing have at no time been in accordance with the law
as required by Article 8(2);
(c) The interception and its purported authorisation (if any), and processing, have at
no time been justified as necessary in a democratic society as required by
Article 8(2).”
14. Paragraph 14 of the Grounds of Claim and Complaint expanded on
the applicant's submissions:
“In particular, the Complainant submits that:
(a) the proper inference from the circumstances described by the Complainant,
amplified by the refusal of the [authorities] to deny the activities alleged, is that it is
established on the balance of probabilities that the interception and processing took
place. At minimum there is a reasonable likelihood that interception and processing ...