BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
15
have been obtained by US authorities pursuant to Prism and/or ... Upstream,
contravened Articles 8 or 10 ECHR, but now complies.”
4. The IPT’s third judgment of 22 June 2015 as amended by its 1 July
2015 letter
52. The third judgment of the IPT, published on 22 June 2015,
determined whether the applicants’ communications obtained under PRISM
or Upstream had been solicited, received, stored or transmitted by the
United Kingdom authorities in contravention of Articles 8 and/or 10 of the
Convention; and whether the applicants’ communications had been
intercepted, viewed, stored or transmitted by the United Kingdom
authorities so as to amount to unlawful conduct or in contravention of
Articles 8 and/or 10.
53. The IPT made no determination in favour of eight of the ten
applicants. In line with its usual practice where it did not find in favour of
the claimant, it did not confirm whether or not their communications had
been intercepted. However, in relation to two applicants the IPT made
determinations. The identity of one of the organisations was wrongly noted
in the judgment and the error was corrected by the IPT’s letter of 1 July
2015.
54. In respect of Amnesty International, the IPT found that email
communications had been lawfully and proportionately intercepted and
accessed pursuant to section 8(4) of RIPA but that the time-limit for
retention permitted under the internal policies of GCHQ had been
overlooked and the material had therefore been retained for longer than
permitted. However, the IPT was satisfied that the material had not been
accessed after the expiry of the relevant retention time-limit and that the
breach could be characterised as a technical one. It amounted nonetheless to
a breach of Article 8 and GCHQ was ordered to destroy any of the
communications which had been retained for longer than the relevant period
and to deliver one hard copy of the documents within seven days to the
Interception of Communications Commissioner to retain for five years in
case they were needed for any further legal proceedings. GCHQ was also
ordered to provide a closed report within fourteen days confirming the
destruction of the documents. No award of compensation was made.
55. In respect of the Legal Resources Centre, the IPT found that
communications from an email address associated with the applicant had
been intercepted and selected for examination under a section 8(4) warrant.
Although it was satisfied the interception was lawful and proportionate and
that selection for examination was proportionate, the IPT found that the
internal procedure for selection was, in error, not followed. There had
therefore been a breach of the Legal Resources Centre’s Article 8 rights.
However, the IPT was satisfied that no use was made of the material and
that no record had been retained so the applicant had not suffered material