MR JUSTICE BURTON
Approved Judgment
some of those intercepted communications might in principle
have been “read, looked at or listened to” by a person or
persons under that regime.
4. The Claimants allege:
79.
(a)
the Intelligence Services operate a programme,
described as Tempora, under which fibre optic cables
are intercepted. This involves making available the
contents of all the communications and communications
data being transmitted through the fibre optic cables;
(b)
the intercepted communications and communications
data may be retained for an indefinite period and
automatically searched through the use of a large
number of search terms, including search terms
supplied by the United States National Security Agency.
(c)
The intercepted communications and communications
data may then be further retained, analysed and shared
with other public authorities.”
Leaving aside the questions relating to Article 10, as discussed in paragraph 12
above, the Agreed Issues themselves are formulated as follows:.
“Issue (iv)
In light of the factual premises at paragraphs (3) and (4)
above, does the statutory regime as set out in paragraphs 102178 of the Respondents’ Open Response to the Claims brought
by Liberty and Privacy satisfy the Art. 8(2) “in accordance
with the law” requirement?
Issue (v)
Given the Claimants’ allegations at factual premise (4), is the
definition of “external communications” within s.20 Regulation
of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 sufficiently precise to be “in
accordance with the law” for the purposes of Art.8(2)?
Issue (ix)
Does the absence of a requirement that any s. 8(4) warrants
issued in respect of the alleged Tempora programme target
specific individuals or premises give rise to a breach of the
“necessity” and “in accordance with the law” requirements in
Art. 8(2) and/or (if the answer to Issue (vi) is “yes”) Art.
10(2)?
Issue (x)
Are the “necessity” and “in accordance with the law”
requirements in Art. 8(2) . . . breached because interception