facts of his complaint, including the complaint about the NCND response, but it
does not of itself constitute a ground for holding that a non-committal response by
the Respondent is an interference with his right to respect for private life. Such a
response does not have a sufficient impact to constitute an interference with
Article 8(1) where no relevant data are held. Unlike the ordinary courts and other
tribunals like the Information Tribunal, this Tribunal is well placed to ascertain
the facts behind the response and to determine whether any interference that
has occurred was justified.
B, The Justification Issue
32. If there has been an interference within Article 8(1) by holding relevant data
and by giving an NCND response to the subject request, the Tribunal will have to
consider whether the Respondent's conduct had a legitimate aim, such as the
interests of national security, and whether it was necessary in a democratic
society, on which issue questions of proportionality principles arise.
33. The preliminary dispute relates only to the intensity of review to be conducted
by the Tribunal on issues of justification. It is provided by RIPA that, in the
determination of both complaints and HRA claims, the Tribunal shall apply the
same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial
review." See s 67 (2) and (3)(c)RIPA
34. The Complainant suggests that a higher degree of scrutiny is appropriate in