Inquest in relation to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales
2.10 In the light of some evidence given by Lord Condon (ex-Metropolitan Police
Commissioner) at the inquest in relation to the death of Diana, Princess of Wales,
the Coroner – Lord Justice Scott Baker – asked for my assistance as to whether
there was anything in the Confidential Annex to the Report of the Interception of
Communications Commissioner for 1992 which casts light on what was said in
paragraph 8 of the open part of that Report. The final part of paragraph 8 states:
“From time to time stories are published in newspapers describing
interception said to have been carried out by GCHQ or by what are usually
called MI5 and MI6. Such stories are, in my experience without exception,
false. They give the public an entirely misleading impression both of the
extent of official interception and of the targets against which interception is
directed”.
2.11 Given the unusual circumstances of this Inquest, I needed to consult the
then Commissioner, Lord Bingham, and the Prime Minister on the propriety
of my relaxing the normal stance taken in relation to disclosing the content of
confidential documents. It was exceptional for the Interception of Communications
Commissioner to comment on the contents of a Confidential Annex to a statutory
Annual Report. However, in the circumstances, including the fact that there have
been ministerial statements to Parliament on the subject, I think that it is right
for me to have done so. The terms of a Note to the Coroner were agreed with
the Prime Minister. In essence it confirmed that in the case of Diana, Princess of
Wales:
– there was nothing in the 1992 Confidential Annex which in any way
evidenced or constituted the basis for the ‘stories’ referred to in paragraph
8, and
– any breach of statutory requirements should have been reported. So far as
can be ascertained there was no evidence of any reported breach.
– It was open to anyone unlawfully intercepted to lodge a complaint which
would have gone to the statutory Tribunal. So far as can be ascertained the
Tribunal files disclose no evidence of any relevant complaint.
2.12 I formally submitted my response to Lord Justice Scott Baker on 1 February
2008. The jury delivered its verdict on the inquest on 7 April 2008.
ECHR decision: Liberty v. UK
2.13 In July 2008 the European Court of Human Rights handed down judgment
in Liberty v. UK. The complaint was about interception of communications,
allegedly contrary to Article 8 of the Convention. The challenge related to the
way in which external interception was conducted under the previous legislation,
the Interception of Communications Act 1985 (IOCA). IOCA was replaced by
the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which was introduced to
take proper account of human rights and which contains additional foreseeability
requirements. I have been advised by the Home Office that they are considering
whether any additional measures are required in light of the Strasbourg judgment.
I hope to be able to report on the progress of this consideration in my 2009 Annual
Report.
Briefing by the National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC)
2.14 Along with the Intelligence Services Commissioner, Sir Peter Gibson,
I visited the National Technical Assistance Centre (NTAC) on 12 June 2008 to
be briefed about their role. NTAC was established to provide technical support
to public authorities, particularly law enforcement agencies and the intelligence
services. It includes a facility for the complex processing of lawfully obtained
protected electronic information. NTAC is the leading national authority for all
matters relating to the processing of protected information into an intelligible
5