2
LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
1. The alleged interception of communications
5. The applicants alleged that in the 1990s the Ministry of Defence
operated an Electronic Test Facility (“ETF”) at Capenhurst, Cheshire, which
was built to intercept 10,000 simultaneous telephone channels coming from
Dublin to London and on to the continent. Between 1990 and 1997 the
applicants claimed that the ETF intercepted all public telecommunications,
including telephone, facsimile and e-mail communications, carried on
microwave radio between the two British Telecom’s radio stations (at
Clwyd and Chester), a link which also carried much of Ireland’s
telecommunications traffic. During this period the applicant organisations
were in regular telephone contact with each other and also providing, inter
alia, legal advice to those who sought their assistance. They alleged that
many of their communications would have passed between the British
Telecom radio stations referred to above and would thus have been
intercepted by the ETF.
2. Complaint to the Interception of Communications Tribunal (“ICT”)
6. On 9 September 1999, having seen a television report on the alleged
activities of the ETF, the applicant organisations requested the Interception
of Communications Tribunal (“the ICT”: see paragraphs 28-30 below) to
investigate the lawfulness of any warrants which had been issued in respect
of the applicants’ communications between England and Wales and Ireland.
On 19 October 1999 an official of the ICT confirmed that an investigation
would proceed and added:
“... I am directed to advise you that the Tribunal has no way of knowing in advance
of an investigation whether a warrant exists in any given case. The Tribunal
investigates all complaints in accordance with section 7 of the [Interception of
Communications Act 1985: ‘the 1985 Act’, see paragraphs 16-33 below] establishing
whether a relevant warrant or relevant certificate exists or had existed and, if so,
whether there has been any contravention of sections 2 to 5. If ... the Tribunal
concludes that there has been a contravention of sections 2 to 5, the Tribunal may take
steps under sections 7(4), (5) and (6). In any case where there is found to have been
no contravention, the Tribunal is not empowered to disclose whether or not authorised
interception has taken place. In such instances, complainants are advised only that
there has been no contravention of sections 2 to 5 in relation to a relevant warrant or a
relevant certificate.”
7. By a letter dated 16 December 1999 the ICT confirmed that it had
thoroughly investigated the matter and was satisfied that there had been no