72
BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
on Human Rights as it is not a “court” for the purposes of section 4 of the
Human Rights Act 1998.
126. Under section 67(8), there is no appeal from a decision of the IPT
“except to such extent as the Secretary of State may by order otherwise
provide”. No such order has been made by the Secretary of State.
Furthermore, in R(Privacy International) v. Investigatory Powers Tribunal
[2017] EWCA Civ 1868 the Court of Appeal recently confirmed that
section 67(8) also had the effect of preventing a judicial review claim from
being brought against a decision of the IPT. As a consequence, the IPT is a
court of last resort for the purposes of the obligation to request a preliminary
ruling under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union (see paragraph 236 below).
127. Section 68(6) and (7) requires those involved in the authorisation
and execution of an interception warrant to disclose or provide to the IPT all
documents and information it may require.
128. Section 67(7) provides that where the IPT determines any
complaint it has the power to award compensation and to make such other
orders as it thinks fit, including orders quashing or cancelling any warrant
and orders requiring the destruction of any records obtained thereunder. In
the event that a claim before the IPT is successful, the IPT is generally
required to make a report to the Prime Minister (section 68(5)).
129. Section 68(1) entitles the IPT to determine its own procedure,
although section 69(1) provides that the Secretary of State may also make
procedural rules.
2. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000 (“the Rules”)
130. The Rules were adopted by the Secretary of State to govern various
aspects of the procedure before the IPT.
131. Although the IPT is under no duty to hold oral hearings, pursuant to
Rule 9 it may hold, at any stage of consideration, oral hearings at which the
complainant may make representations, give evidence and call witnesses. It
may also hold separate oral hearings which the person whose conduct is the
subject of the complaint, the public authority against which the proceedings
are brought, or any other person involved in the authorisation or execution
of an interception warrant may be required to attend. Rule 9 provides that
the IPT’s proceedings, including any oral hearings, are to be conducted in
private.
132. Rule 11 allows the IPT to receive evidence in any form, even where
it would not be admissible in a court of law. It may require a witness to give
evidence on oath, but no person can be compelled to give evidence at an
oral hearing under Rule 9(3).
133. Rule 13 provides guidance on notification to the complainant of the
IPT’s findings: