(ii)
(Paragraphs 94-95, 101, and by reference to Issue (x) recorded at
paragraph 79) It is neither necessary, nor indeed possible, to
differentiate at the interception stage what is lawfully intercepted
pursuant to the warrant, but the careful and proportionate
consideration of what is proportionate for the statutory purposes
arises at the stage of selection for examination.
(iii)
(Paragraph 116(vi)) There is no basis for objection by virtue of the
absence of judicial pre-authorisation of a warrant.
5.
The Tribunal has not felt it necessary or appropriate to consider instructing a special
advocate in this case, but has been greatly assisted by Counsel to the Tribunal.
6.
The Tribunal, exercising its powers under section 68(7) of RIPA, has required and
received full cooperation from the Respondents in disclosing all documents and
information required in order to investigate the complaints made by the Claimants
and it has taken fully into account the evidence, both open and closed, put before it
by the Claimants and the Respondents.
7.
In the light of the foregoing, the Tribunal’s Determinations are as follows.
8.
In IPT/13/77/H (Liberty), no determination is made in the Claimant’s favour.
9.
In IPT/13/92/CH (Privacy International) no determination is made in the Claimant’s
favour.
10.
In IPT/13/168-173/CH (Organisations affiliated or associated with Liberty), no
determination is made in favour of the First Claimant (the American Civil Liberties
Union), the Second Claimant (the Canadian Civil Liberties Union), the Third
Claimant (the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights), the Fourth Claimant (the
Hungarian Civil Liberties Union) or the Fifth Claimant (the Irish Council for Civil
Liberties).
11.
In IPT/13/168-173/CH, the Tribunal makes a determination in favour of the Sixth
Claimant (the Legal Resources Centre). In IPT/13/194/CH (Amnesty International
Ltd) the Tribunal makes a determination in favour of the Claimant.
12.
Under Rule 13(2) of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 where the
Tribunal makes a determination in favour of a complainant it is required to provide
him with a summary of that determination including any findings of fact. However
that duty is subject, under Rule 13(4), to the general duty imposed on the Tribunal
by Rule 6(1).
13.
The general duty imposed on the Tribunal under Rule 6(1) is to carry out its
functions “in such a way as to secure that information is not disclosed to an extent,
or in a manner, that is contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to national
security … or the continued discharge of the functions of any of the intelligence
services.” The Tribunal may not provide any information by way of findings of fact
that raise any substantial risk of damaging national security interests by, inter alia,
revealing or indicating the methods of operation of the intelligence agencies in