LIBERTY AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
3
contravention of sections 2 to 5 of the 1985 Act in relation to the relevant
warrant or certificate.
3. Complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”)
8. By a letter dated 9 September the applicants complained to the DPP of
an unlawful interception, requesting the prosecution of those responsible.
The DPP passed the matter to the Metropolitan Police for investigation. By
a letter dated 7 October 1999 the police explained that no investigation
could be completed until the ICT had investigated and that a police
investigation might then follow if it could be shown that an unwarranted
interception had taken place or if any of the other conditions set out in
section 1(2)-(4) of the 1985 Act had not been met. The applicants pointed
out, in their letter of 12 October 1999, that the vague, albeit statutory,
response of the ICT would mean that they would not know whether a
warrant had been issued or, if it had, whether it had been complied with.
They would not, therefore, be in a position to make submissions to the
police after the ICT investigation as to whether or not a criminal
investigation was warranted. The applicants asked if, and if so how, the
police could establish for themselves whether or not a warrant had been
issued, so as to decide whether an investigation was required, and how the
police would investigate, assuming there had been no warrant.
9. The DPP responded on 19 October 1999 that the police had to await
the ICT decision, and the police responded on 9 November 1999 that the
applicants’ concerns were receiving the fullest attention, but that they were
unable to enter into discussion on matters of internal procedure and interdepartmental investigation.
10. On 21 December 1999 the applicants wrote to the police pointing out
that, having received the decision of the ICT, they still did not know
whether or not there had been a warrant or whether there had been unlawful
interception. The response, dated 17 January 2000, assured the applicants
that police officers were making enquires with the relevant agencies with a
view to establishing whether there had been a breach of section 1 of the
1985 Act and identifying the appropriate investigative authority. The police
informed the applicants by a letter dated 31 March 2000 that their enquiries
continued, and, by a letter dated 13 April 2000, that these enquiries had not
revealed an offence contrary to section 1 of the 1985 Act.
4. Complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (“IPT”)
11. On 15 December 2000 the former statutory regime for the
interception of communications was replaced by the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (see paragraphs 34-39 below) and a new
tribunal, the IPT, was created.