58
KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
187. In respect of the rules limiting disclosure, the Court recalls that the
entitlement to disclosure of relevant evidence is not an absolute right. The
interests of national security or the need to keep secret methods of
investigation of crime must be weighed against the general right to
adversarial proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Edwards and Lewis v. the
United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39647/98 and 40461/98, § 46, ECHR 2004-X).
The Court notes that the prohibition on disclosure set out in Rule 6(2)
admits of exceptions, set out in Rules 6(3) and (4). Accordingly, the
prohibition is not an absolute one. The Court further observes that
documents submitted to the IPT in respect of a specific complaint, as well
as details of any witnesses who have provided evidence, are likely to be
highly sensitive, particularly when viewed in light of the Government's
“neither confirm nor deny” policy. The Court agrees with the Government
that, in the circumstances, it was not possible to disclose redacted
documents or to appoint special advocates as these measures would not
have achieved the aim of preserving the secrecy of whether any interception
had taken place. It is also relevant that where the IPT finds in the applicant's
favour, it can exercise its discretion to disclose such documents and
information under Rule 6(4) (see paragraph 84 above).
188. As regards limitations on oral and public hearings, the Court
recalls, first, that the obligation to hold a hearing is not absolute. There may
be proceedings in which an oral hearing is not required and where the courts
may fairly and reasonably decide the case on the basis of the parties'
submissions and other written materials. The character of the circumstances
that may justify dispensing with an oral hearing essentially comes down to
the nature of the issues to be decided by the competent national court (see
Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, §§ 41 to 42, ECHR 2006-XIII). The
Court notes that Rule 9(2) provides that oral hearings are within the IPT's
discretion and it is clear that there is nothing to prevent the IPT from
holding an oral hearing where it considers that such a hearing would assist
its examination of the case. As the IPT held in its preliminary ruling, its
discretion to hold oral hearings extends to inter partes oral hearings, where
such hearings can take place without breaching the IPT's duty to prevent the
potentially harmful disclosure of sensitive information (see paragraph 92
above). Finally, in respect of the stipulation in Rule 9(6) that hearings must
be held in private (interpreted by the IPT not to apply to cases involving the
determination of preliminary issues of law – see paragraph 93 above), the
Court notes that it is clear from the terms of Article 6 § 1 itself that national
security may justify the exclusion of the public from the proceedings.
189. Concerning the provision of reasons, the Court emphasises that the
extent to which the duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the
nature of the decision and must be determined in the light of the
circumstances of the case (see Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, § 29,
Series A no. 303-A). In the context of the IPT's proceedings, the Court