MR JUSTICE BURTON
Approved Judgment
Caroline Lucas MP & Ors v Security Service & Ors
- It covers all forms of interception of communications and ‘electronic
surveillance’ (including eavesdropping) that are subject to authorisation by
a warrant signed by a Secretary of State.
History of the Wilson Doctrine
2. In answer to questions in the House of Commons, on 17 November 1966 the
then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, stated, that he had decided to give an
instruction “that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of
Parliament... [b]ut that, if there was any development which required a
change in the general policy, [he] would at such moment as seemed
compatible with the security of the country, on [his] own initiative, make a
statement in the House about it.”
3. This principle has been referred to since as the ‘Wilson Doctrine’. In the
intervening years since 1966, public statements have been made on the subject
by successive Administrations clarifying the Doctrine. They have also
confirmed that the targeting of any Parliamentarian’s communications should
continue to be regarded as exceptional.
Scope of the Wilson Doctrine
4. The Doctrine was clarified to apply to Lords as well as Members of
Parliament. Its application is limited to members of the Westminster
Parliament only (both MPs and Peers, referred to in this guidance as
‘Parliamentarians’) and has never been extended to Members of the European
Parliament or Devolved Administrations.
5. The Doctrine covers all forms of interception of communications and
‘electronic surveillance’ (including eavesdropping) that are subject to
authorisation by a warrant signed by a Secretary of State only.
6. The Wilson Doctrine does not prohibit the interception (etc) of
Parliamentarians’ communications. There is no such prohibition in the
relevant law (RIPA). Further, it is not, and has never been, Government policy
that Parliamentarians’ communications may not be the subject of interception.
7. Thus, on 15 July 2014, in the Parliamentary debate on the Data Retention
and Investigatory Powers Bill the Home Secretary made it clear in the House
of Commons that the Wilson Doctrine “does not absolutely exclude the use of
these [interception/electronic surveillance] powers against Parliamentarians,
but it sets certain requirements for those powers to be used in relation to
Parliamentarians.”
8. The Doctrine applies to the deliberate targeting of Parliamentarians’
communications by interception or electronic surveillance. An application for
a Secretary of State warrant which names a Parliamentarian as the subject of
the interception/electronic surveillance will engage the Wilson Doctrine. So
too will an application which names another person as the subject of the