of legality to the interpretation of RIP A; the principle of proportionality with regard
to interference with the right; the application of RIPA to complaints and claims in
respect of acts committed before 2 October 2000( the date on which RIPA and the
HRA came into force); and whether an extension of time should be granted under
s67(5) RIPA and s7(5) of the HRA.
9. Legal points were raised in the written submissions concerning the Data Protection
Act 1998 and alleged breaches of it, but they were not pursued at the hearing and will
not be dealt with in this determination.
II. COMMON GROUND.
10. The exchange of written submissions ordered by the Tribunal narrowed the area of
dispute between the parties, as they revealed the following measure of agreement on
the relevant propositions and principles governing the determination of the complaint
and the claim.
(1) Under s2 of the 1985 Act the Secretary of State had power to issue
interception warrants if he considered that the warrant was necessary in the
interests of national security, or for the purpose of preventing or detecting
serious crime or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of
the United Kingdom. In considering whether a warrant was necessary the
Secretary of State had to consider whether the information which it was
considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired