ensure accuracy and authenticity, and is not left to rely upon a second-hand account,
as in Health Stores.
10. Miss Rose argues that it is not for the Claimants to prove that they need the
disclosure in redacted form, nor for the Tribunal to pre-empt any advantage which
the Claimants might get from disclosure being made in that manner. But disclosure
should only be given to the extent that it is relevant and necessary to enable the
preliminary issue to be determined. Provided that the relevant parts of the
documents, to the extent and in the manner that they can properly be disclosed
without prejudicing security and intelligence interests, have been properly disclosed
then there is no need for any further disclosure. Information which might be gleaned
from the form and scale of redactions required to excise material is not relevant. Nor
is it possible to see how any legitimate advantage could be derived in argument from
the form in which material has been disclosed. The preliminary issue is a question of
law and its resolution will be determined on the basis of the information which has
been disclosed.
11. The Tribunal has inspected the documents in respect of which further disclosure is
sought. It is satisfied that the protection of intelligence and security interests does
require that disclosure should not be given by way of redacted copies of documents,
but by summary or retyping.
12. For those reasons the Tribunal has decided that in principle it is proper for disclosure
to be given by the Respondents by way of summary or by way of retyping, where (as
here) it is necessary to secure the protection of security and intelligence interests.
13. The Respondents are reviewing the disclosure required, and that disclosure will be
reviewed by Counsel to the Tribunal. The Tribunal itself will be prepared to
reconsider questions of disclosure if it considers that the arguments, when presented
at the hearing of the preliminary issue, may require the extent or form of disclosure
to be reconsidered.
14. It follows from this decision that it is not necessary to consider the issue, which has
been raised by the Claimants, as to the power of the Tribunal to order a Respondent,
where it does not consent to do so, to give disclosure to a Claimant.