10
LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
(b) a certificate is a relevant certificate in relation to an applicant if and to the extent
that an address used as mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii) above is specified in the
certificate for the purpose of including communications sent to or from that address in
the certified material.”
29. The ICT applied the principles applicable by a court on an
application for judicial review. If it found there had been a contravention of
the provisions of the Act, it was to give notice of that finding to the
applicant, make a report to the Prime Minister and to the Commissioner
appointed under the Act and, where it thought fit, make an order quashing
the relevant warrant, directing the destruction of the material intercepted
and/or directing the Secretary of State to pay compensation. In other cases,
the ICT was to give notice to the applicant stating that there had been no
contravention of sections 2-5 of the Act.
30. The ICT consisted of five members, each of whom was required to
be a qualified lawyer of not less than ten years standing. They held office
for a five-year period and could be re-appointed. The decisions of the ICT
were not subject to appeal.
(c) The Commissioner
31. Section 8 provided that a Commissioner be appointed by the Prime
Minister. He or she was required to be a person who held, or who had held,
high judicial office. The Commissioner’s functions included the following:
– to keep under review the carrying out by the Secretary of State of the
functions conferred on him by sections 2-5 of the 1985 Act;
– to give to the ICT all such assistance as it might require for the
purpose of enabling it to carry out its functions;
– to keep under review the adequacy of the arrangements made under
section 6 for safeguarding intercepted material and destroying it where
its retention was no longer necessary;
– to report to the Prime Minister if there appeared to have been a
contravention of sections 2-5 which had not been reported by the ICT or
if the arrangements under section 6 were inadequate;
– to make an annual report to the Prime Minister on the exercise of the
Commissioner’s functions. This report had to be laid before the Houses
of Parliament. The Prime Minister had the power to exclude any matter
from the report if publication would have been prejudicial to national
security, to the prevention or detection of serious crime or to the wellbeing of the United Kingdom. The report had to state if any matter had
been so excluded.
32. In his first report as Commissioner, in 1992, Sir Thomas Bingham
MR, as he then was, explained his own role as part of the safeguards
inherent in the 1985 Act as follows:
“The third major safeguard is provided by the Commissioner himself. While there is
nothing to prevent consultation of the Commissioner before a warrant is issued, it is