BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
115
GCHQ confirmed that they would work in the forthcoming weeks to review
their policies and procedures (see paragraph 93 above).
260. In addition, in News Group and Others v. The Commissioner of
Police of the Metropolis the IPT found that the regime under Chapter II of
RIPA (for the acquisition of communications data) did not contain effective
safeguards to protect Article 10 rights. Although the IPT could not award
any remedy in respect of the failure to provide adequate safeguards, as this
did not in itself render the authorisations for the acquisition of
communications data unlawful, in March 2015 the 2007 ACD Code of
Practice was replaced by a new code with enhanced safeguards in respect of
applications for communications data designed to identify a journalist’s
source (see paragraphs 118-120 above). The applicants in that case
subsequently lodged a complaint under Article 10 of the Convention with
this Court; however, in a recent decision the Court declared the complaint
inadmissible as it found that the applicants had not suffered a “significant
disadvantage” within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention
(see Anthony France and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.),
nos. 25357/16, 25514/16, 25552/16 and 25597/16, 26 September 2016). In
particular, the Court observed that “the applicants have benefitted from a
thorough and comprehensive judgment from the IPT, which clearly sets out
all the aspects of the interference with their rights”. Furthermore, although
“the IPT could not find that there had been a violation of their rights, it
nonetheless made a clear statement that their rights had been infringed” and
a change in the law subsequently occurred (see Anthony France and Others,
cited above, §§ 43-46).
261. Finally, to cite an earlier example, in Paton and Others v. Poole
Borough Council, Case Nos IPT/09/01/C, IPT/09/02/C, IPT/09/03/C,
IPT/09/04/C and IPT/09/05/C, 29 July 2010, the IPT found that surveillance
carried out by a local authority was both unlawful and in breach of Article 8
of the Convention as it was not for the permitted purpose and was neither
necessary nor proportionate. While the IPT made no findings regarding the
Convention compliance of the regime as a whole, the case was highly
publicised and fed into a general public debate about the surveillance
powers of local councils. Very shortly after the judgment was handed down,
the Government announced that there was to be a review of RIPA which
would cover its use by local authorities. Two years later RIPA was amended
to restrict the power of local authorities to conduct surveillance.
262. Therefore, while the evidence submitted by the Government may
not yet demonstrate the existence of a “binding obligation” requiring it to
remedy any incompatibility identified by the IPT, in light of the IPT’s
“special significance” in secret surveillance cases which arises from its
“extensive powers ... to investigate complaints before it and to access
confidential information” (see Kennedy, cited above, § 110) the Court
would nevertheless accept that the practice of giving effect to its findings on