KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
5
has taken place and continues to take place (Hewitt and Harman v. UK, 12175/86,
EComHR Report 9.5.89, paras. 26-32).
(b) The interception is not in accordance with the law so far as involving a breach of
any requirement of the DPA (including the Data Protection Principles) ...
(c) The complainant poses no risk to national security nor in his case could any
other ground for authorising interception of his communications reasonably be
considered to exist. It cannot be said that interception of his communications has at
any material time been a necessary or proportionate interference ... with his rights
under Article 8(1).”
15. As to remedies, the Grounds of Claim and Complaint noted the
following:
“17. If the Tribunal finds that the Complainant succeeds on the claim or complaint,
it is asked to make ... :
(a) a final order prohibiting each Respondent from intercepting any communication
by the Complainant ... or retaining or otherwise processing the product of any such
interception, except on the grounds, and subject to the procedure, provided for by
RIPA Part I;
(b) an order ... quashing or cancelling any warrant or authorisation relating to any
such interception;
(c) an order requiring the destruction of any product of such interception ...
(d) an award of compensation ... and/or damages ... for the loss and damage
sustained by the Complainant in consequence of the matters complained of (including
economic loss resulting from interference with his business communications).”
16. On 23 January 2003, the IPT, presided over by Lord Justice
Mummery, issued a joint Ruling on Preliminary Issues of Law in the
applicant's case together with a case involving a complaint by British-Irish
Rights Watch and others in which a similar challenge to the IPT's Rules was
made (see paragraphs 84 to 87 below).
17. On 9 December 2004, the IPT, again presided over by Lord Justice
Mummery, issued a second ruling on preliminary issues of law in the
applicant's case. In the introduction to its ruling, the IPT summarised the
case before it as follows:
“1. On 6 July 2001 the Complainant made (a) a complaint to the Tribunal under the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act ... and (b) a claim under the Human Rights
Act 1998 ... in respect of alleged ongoing interception by one or more of the
respondent agencies (the Security Service, GCHQ and the Commissioner of Police for
the Metropolis) over a period dating back to June 1996 ...
2. The Complainant also alleges harassment, intrusive surveillance, interference
with property, removal of documents, interference with a web site and e-mails and
interception of privileged communications by the respondent agencies.