30. The complaints of pre-RIPA conduct date back to June 1996 and are clearly out of
time. In exercising the discretion to grant an extension of time it is relevant to have
regard to the length of the period of delay, the reasons given for the delay and the
balance of prejudice. The respondent agencies made no submissions on the point,
other than to state that they were content to leave the question whether to extend time to
the discretion of the Tribunal.
31. It was submitted on behalf of the Complainant that there has been an alleged
continuous course of conduct by the respondent agencies; that he had not been
inactive, as he complained of the substance of the conduct through a variety of forums
prior to commencing these proceedings; that the conduct pre-dating 6 July 2000 did not
differ fundamentally from that falling within the 1 year period; that the respondent
agencies would not be prejudiced by the investigation into the conduct at the earlier
period.
32.
In the circumstances summarised in paragraph 31 the Tribunal considers that it is
equitable to extend the time limit for the complaint and the claim.
VI. RESULT.
33. Accordingly the determination of the Tribunal is that, in relation to the complaints
and the claims in this case-
(1) It should apply the principles set out in Section II above;
(2) There is in public law no fundamental or basic common law right of privacy