data, and also says that a Review, Retention and Deletion policy for the “workings”
area has been put in place and is overseen by IPCO. It concludes:“We have discussed with MI5 their decision to delete the material relating to
PI. Whilst regrettable, MI5’s concern was, in our judgment, a legitimate one
as they considered they no longer had a necessity and proportionality case to
retain the material for the fulfilment of their statutory functions. We have
informed them, however, that they would have a clear lawful basis to retain
data for the purposes of facilitating the carrying out of any functions of the
Judicial Commissioners or IPT.”
11.
We respectfully agree with those observations. This issue does not form part of the
reasons for the determinations of the IPT in this case, but we have recorded its outcome
in this judgment because of the importance we attach to the way in which evidence is
provided to the IPT by the Security Service.
12.
The consequences of this state of affairs, if any, so far as remedy is concerned will be
for the Tribunal to assess in due course. At this stage the Tribunal expresses no view
about it.
_________