judgment of Mr. Justice Simon ([2013] EWHC 4111(QB)) handed down on 20th
December 2012. The Third to Eighth Claimants also brought proceedings against HM
Government and others in respect of their alleged rendition to Libya in March 2004,
but those cases were settled in 2012.
3. The Claimants bring these proceedings under section 65 (2) (a) of the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“RIPA”) alleging breaches of articles 6, 8 and 14 of
the ECHR arising from the alleged interception of their legally privileged
communications. The basis of the proceedings is the assertion that the circumstances
of the First and Third Claimants, as members or former members of the Libyan
Islamic Fighting Group, are such that they and their families are likely to have been
of interest to the intelligence agencies. So it is alleged that there is a strong likelihood
that the Respondents have intercepted and are intercepting the legally professionally
privileged communications of the Claimants relating to their civil actions against HM
Government. The proceedings relate only to communications in respect of which the
Claimants can assert legal professional privilege.
4. The Respondents neither confirm nor deny whether any of the Claimants’
communications, whether or not legally privileged, have ever been intercepted or
read, looked at or listened to by the Respondents.
5. By letter dated 12th December 2013 the Claimants requested the Respondents to give
undertakings to protect legally privileged communications and information, pending
the determination of these proceedings. The urgent need for such undertakings was
asserted to arise from the fact that the Respondents had, as a result of having
undertaken searches with a view to preparing their response, recently sought
directions from the Tribunal on a closed basis. It was asserted that those facts made it
obvious that the legally privileged communications of the Claimants had indeed
been subject to interception. By letter dated 16th December the Respondents’
solicitors refused to give the undertakings sought and stated that the Claimants were
wrong to draw any inference from the fact that a closed issue had been raised with
the Tribunal. The Claimant subsequently made this application for interim relief by
reference to those undertakings.
6. On 14th January the Tribunal held a directions hearing at which it was ordered that
the Claimants’ application for interim relief should be listed for hearing on 30 th
January, and that at the same hearing the Tribunal would consider the appropriate
practice to be followed in the event that a closed hearing was requested by the
Respondents.
Interim Relief
7. The application for interim relief is made on the clear basis that the Claimants do not,
at this interim stage, seek to prevent any continuing lawful interception of their