7.
The MI5 witness statement dated 8th October 2018 confirms that the material was
deleted on 24th September 2018, the day before the hearing. It is said in the witness
statement from a Security Service witness that the material in “workings” was
considered by the team responsible for this litigation in the light of the skeleton
argument from the Claimant dated 19th September 2018 which complained, among
other things, about the retention of this data. That team decided to delete it, having
established that this had not already been done. The reason given is that there was no
proper basis for retaining it and it should therefore be deleted in order to minimise the
intrusion into the Claimant’s privacy. It is said that this is consistent with the approach
of all the UKIC agencies to this litigation. They have not suspended their usual
Review, Retention and Deletion policies during its course.
8.
There is a record of what has been deleted, but the material itself has not been copied.
That record is available for inspection by IPCO, and was inspected by IPCO in October
2017. The investigation of the issue by IPCO is a matter for IPCO and the Tribunal has
seen correspondence relating to this which is CLOSED. This correspondence was
inspired by a letter to IPCO sent on the day of the hearing, the 25th September 2018.
9.
Having considered the open witness statement, and the CLOSED material, the Tribunal
is satisfied that the deletion of material relating to the Claimant was carried out for
proper reasons, the issue having been previously reported to IPCO, and did not in any
way prejudice the conduct of this case, or any investigation by IPCO, as a sufficient
record of the deletion was retained for future reference.
10.
IPCO wrote to the Claimant’s solicitors on 29th November 2018 after investigating this
issue with the Security Service. The letter says that IPCO has no concerns about the
necessity and proportionality of the actions taken by the Security Service in deleting the