MR JUSTICE BURTON
Approved Judgment
Mr Justice Burton (President) :
1.
This is the judgment of the Tribunal.
2.
The Claimants before the Tribunal are all Non-Governmental Organisations
working in the field of defending human rights at both the national and/or
international levels. Three of them, Privacy International (“Privacy”), Liberty and
Amnesty International Limited (“Amnesty”) are based in the United Kingdom. The
other organisations, which are named in the title to the action but which we do not
need to identify separately in this judgment, are international organisations based in
a variety of countries, including the United States, Canada, Egypt, Pakistan and
Ireland. The case put forward by the various Claimants was shared out amongst the
counsel representing them in order to make the best use of the five days of open
hearing which had been set aside, and four counsel in the end made the various
submissions on their behalf, Mr Matthew Ryder QC, leading counsel for Liberty
and others, Mr Ben Jaffey and Mr Dan Squires on behalf of Privacy and Bytes For
All, the Pakistani organisation, and Ms Kirsty Brimelow QC on behalf of Amnesty,
in each case supported by further junior counsel and solicitors. The Respondents,
variously named as The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
and for the Home Department and various other bodies, have all been represented
by Mr James Eadie QC with Mr Ben Hooper and Mr Julian Milford, instructed by
the Treasury Solicitor.
3.
The Claimants’ complaints allege the unlawfulness pursuant to Article 8 (and
collaterally Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rights (“the
Convention”) of certain assumed activities of the Security Service (also, and
colloquially, known as MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (and similarly also
known as MI6) and the Government Communications Headquarters (“GCHQ”),
which we shall collectively describe as the Intelligence Services or Respondents.
All counsel cooperated to slim down what was a substantial set of bundles of papers
and a considerable amount of argument into a five day hearing in which all the
necessary and appropriate points on all sides were fully canvassed. We are grateful
for the persuasiveness and succinctness of counsels’ submissions. We have also
been assisted by the contribution, both in writing and orally, of Counsel to the
Tribunal, Mr Martin Chamberlain QC and Mr David Manknell.
4.
The activities are, as we have put it, assumed for the purpose of the resolution of
agreed issues which we shall explain below, for a number of reasons:
i)
The alleged conduct itself is not admitted by the Respondents. It falls to be
considered as a result of allegations made by Mr Edward Snowden, a former
contractor for the National Security Agency (“NSA”) of the United States, by
whom a very substantial quantity of documentation has been leaked and much
put into the public domain. This has resulted in the Claimants asserting their
belief that investigation of the Respondents would show that the Claimants’
privacy has been unlawfully invaded. Hence the Tribunal’s detailed scrutiny is
at this stage carried out upon the basis of assuming the relevant allegations to
be derived from Mr Snowden’s leaks to be true. The set of assumed facts is
set out below, and the arguments of law have proceeded on the basis of those
assumed facts, which have enabled the main hearing to take place entirely in
public without putting at risk any national security interest. Save for the