in bulk, the same standards in Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention apply
to it. The regime for intelligence sharing is defective, for essentially the
same reasons as the s8(4) Regime is inadequate.
Unjustified discrimination contrary to Article 14
20.
The s8(4) Regime is also unjustifiably discriminatory on grounds of
national origin. Persons present in the UK, who are more likely to be
British citizens, enjoy additional procedural safeguards that could (and
should) be provided to persons outside the UK.
Failures of oversight
21.
The UK’s surveillance oversight system is not sufficient to remedy the
above problems. In the past, particularly in Kennedy, the Government has
relied heavily on the IPT and the Interception of Communications
Commissioner (“IOCC”) as an effective form of redress for those who have
been subject to unlawful surveillance. As applied to modern bulk
surveillance practices, the IPT and IOCC are not an effective remedy. The
absence of adequate oversight arrangements is relevant to the “in
accordance with law” arguments and constitute a separate violation of
Article 6, in respect of the IPT.
Structure of this document
22.
In this document the Applicants now reply to the Government’s
observations in accordance with paragraph 12 of the Court’s Practice
Direction on Written Pleadings. This submission sets out the Applicants’
observations on the merits of their application in reply to those submitted
by
the
United
Kingdom
government
(the
“Government”).
These
observations are made at the invitation of the President of the Section
pursuant to Rule 54(2)(b) of the Rules of Court. They also address the
13