BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
73
“(1) In addition to any statement under section 68(4) of the Act, the Tribunal shall
provide information to the complainant in accordance with this rule.
(2) Where they make a determination in favour of the complainant, the Tribunal
shall provide him with a summary of that determination including any findings of fact.
...
(4) The duty to provide information under this rule is in all cases subject to the
general duty imposed on the Tribunal by rule 6(1).
(5) No information may be provided under this rule whose disclosure would be
restricted under rule 6(2) unless the person whose consent would be needed for
disclosure under that rule has been given the opportunity to make representations to
the Tribunal.”
134. Rule 6 requires the IPT to carry out its functions in such a way as to
ensure that information is not disclosed in a manner that is contrary to the
public interest or prejudicial to national security, the prevention or detection
of serious crime, the economic well-being of the United Kingdom or the
continued discharge of the functions of any of the intelligence services.
Pursuant to Rule 6, in principle, the IPT is not permitted to disclose: the fact
that it has held an oral hearing under Rule 9(4); any information disclosed to
it in the course of that hearing or the identity of any witness at that hearing;
any information otherwise disclosed to it by any person involved in the
authorisation or execution of interception warrants, or any information
provided by a Commissioner; and the fact that any information has been
disclosed or provided. However, the IPT may disclose such information
with the consent of the person required to attend the hearing, the person who
disclosed the information, the Commissioner, or the person whose consent
was required for disclosure of the information, as the case may be. The IPT
may also disclose such information as part of the information provided to
the complainant under Rule 13(2), subject to the restrictions contained in
Rule 13(4) and (5).
135. In R(A) v. Director of Establishments of the Security Service [2009]
EWCA Civ 24 Lord Justice Laws observed that the IPT was “a judicial
body of like standing and authority to the High Court”. More recently, in
R(Privacy International) v. Investigatory Powers Tribunal (cited above)
Lord Justice Sales noted that “[t]he quality of the membership of the IPT in
terms of judicial expertise and independence is very high”.
3. IPT ruling on preliminary issues of law
136. On 23 January 2003, in a case involving a complaint by BritishIrish Rights Watch, the IPT gave a ruling on preliminary issues of law, in
which it considered whether a number of aspects of its procedure were
within the powers conferred on the Secretary of State and Convention
compliant. The IPT sat, for the first time, in public.