personal data cases, as the Convention right to privacy is in issue. The
Respondent contends that a lighter touch is appropriate, as national
security interests are involved. In that area Member States are allowed a
wide margin of appreciation and the national courts recognise that
government has a discretionary area of judgment. In particular there has
been judicial recognition, both in Strasbourg and the UK, of the special
problems involved, for example, in combating terrorism: there are real
difficulties in striking a fair balance between the requirements of protecting
Convention rights and the need to protect the State and the public against
those who would use violence to overthrow the democratic order, which
guarantees human rights. Both sides agree that it is not for the Tribunal, in
the application of judicial review principles, to decide the merits, as distinct
from the lawfulness, of the Respondent's conduct.
The Tribunal's Approach to Justification
Issues (1) If relevant data are held
35. There is no lack of guidance in the authorities on the approach of
judicial authorities to a structured review of decisions of the Executive
involving a conflict between human rights and matters of national security.
The Tribunal is a judicial body entrusted with the determination of civil rights
and subject to the guidance given in the ordinary courts in such matters.
The following cases were cited: Leander v. Sweden [1987] 9 EHRR 433;
Brind v. UK (1994) 18 EHRR CD 77; R (Daly) v. Secretary of State for
the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532; R v. Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247;
Baker Information Tribunal Decision at paragraph 76; Association of