20
LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
reviewed all intelligence reports incorporating intercepted material that were
drawn up by requesting officials for dissemination. Fifth, throughout the
relevant period, as was explained to all personnel involved in the selection
process, the independent Commissioner had an unrestricted right to review
the operation of the selection process and to examine material obtained
pursuant to it. From the relevant records, it was possible to check on the
interception initiated by officials and, if necessary, to call for an
explanation. Each of the Commissioners during the relevant period (Lords
Lloyd, Bingham and Nolan) exercised his right to review the operation of
the selection processes, and each Commissioner declared himself satisfied
that the selection processes were being conducted in a manner that was fully
consistent with the provisions of the 1985 Act. By this combination of
measures there were effective safeguards in place against any risk of
individual, combined or institutional misbehaviour or action contrary to the
terms of the legislation or warrant. Finally, once the Intelligence Services
Act 1994 had come into force on 15 December 1994, it was possible for an
aggrieved individual to complain to the Tribunal.
51. As regards the processes described by the applicants as
“minimisation” and “dissemination”, safeguards in place during the relevant
period ensured that access to and retention of the raw intercept material and
any intelligence reports based on such material were kept to the absolute
minimum practicable, having regard to the public interest served by the
interception system. Relevant information in the material selected and
examined was disseminated in the form of intelligence reports, usually
compiled by the requesting officials. As part of the safeguards under section
6 of the 1985 Act, there were throughout the relevant period internal
regulations governing the manner in which intelligence reports were
produced, directed at all individuals engaged in producing intelligence
reports based on material selected from communications intercepted under
the section 3(2) warrant regime. The regulations stipulated, among other
things, that no information should be reported unless it clearly contributed
to a stated intelligence requirement conforming to one of the purposes set
out in section 2(2) of the 1985 Act. The regulations also dealt specifically
with the circumstances in which it was appropriate to name specific
individuals or organisations in the intelligence reports. During the relevant
period there was in place a comprehensive security regime for handling all
types of classified material. Dissemination was restricted to those with a
genuine “need to know”, and was further limited to persons who had been
security vetted and briefed on how to handle it, with a view to ensuring
continued confidentiality.
52. The Government refuted the suggestion that, to comply with
Article 8 § 2, the safeguards put in place in respect of the intercepted
material had themselves to comply with the “in accordance with the law”
criteria. In any event, the functions of the Commissioner and the Tribunal