Investigatory Powers Tribunal rules in favour of a complainant for the very first time
It appears that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) has actually ruled in favour of a complainant, for the first time in its history !
Previous annual reports by the Interception of Communications Commissioner and the intelligence Services Commissioner have a section on the activities of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, and none of them have ever reported that any complaint against the authorities had ever been upheld.
It is possible that we have missed news of some obscure IPT ruling in the calendar year 2005, which would presumably have been reported in the still as yet unpublished 2005 annual reports, but there is nothing published on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal website section on Rulings either.
So where are the prison sentences, or fines for those who ordered or conducted the illegal intercepts? Where is the ordering of the destruction of the privacy invading recordings, transcripts and communications traffic data logfiles, and the financial compensation for the victims of the illegal acts ?
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal does not have any power to convict, or fine, or even to recommend the prosecution of anyone found to have ordered or conducted illegal communications interceptions. The IPT does have the power to order the destruction of the intercepted recordings, transcripts and communications data traffic logfiles , and to award financial compensation to the victims, but it does not seem to have done so in this case.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Part IV
and the Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2665 The Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000
According to the this article:
:
The Sunday Times
December 10, 2006Met chief oversaw illegal bugging of black officers
Michael Gillard and Jonathan Calvert
SIR IAN BLAIR, the Metropolitan police commissioner, oversaw an illegal operation in which the telephone calls of black and Asian officers were bugged.
A panel led by a judge ruled last week that the covert operation by anti-corruption detectives breached surveillance regulations and the right to privacy.
The squad, known as the “Untouchables”, eavesdropped on private calls between members of the National Black Police Association (NBPA) and their legal adviser.The ruling will further embarrass Blair, who earlier this year was forced to apologise to Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, and three officials for secretly recording his phone conversations with them. It was made by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, a judicial panel that handles complaints about surveillance by law enforcement agencies and is understood to be the first time a complaint has been upheld.
The judgement by Justice Burton and two QCs found there were “no lawful grounds” for the bugging because detectives had failed to obtain proper consent.
[...]
The NBPA’s complaint to the tribunal, held last month, claimed the operation had a political objective “to undermine the legitimate activities of the association”.
[...]
The Met said it was reviewing the findings of the tribunal and assessing its implications.
Will Sir Ian Blair resign over this latest example of mismanagement and illegality under his command ?
Comments
So when are you guys emigrating off out of US or UK? Because to remain is to offer tacit support to a borderline terrorist state with an immoral foreign policy. Civil liberties are deteriorating rapidly: Speak out and slammer time beckons. Ask yourselves which category you fall into: Risk taker or risk adverse? Because if you are risk adverse you are probably in denial so the government wants to keep you to work on the plantation. On the other hand if you are a risk taker, from the government’s perspective this equals potential troublemaker. So they would prefer to be rid of you. But just because they want you to go, doesn't mean it's not a good idea to fly the coop. Hate it and leave it.
Posted by: Andrew Milner | December 11, 2006 3:33 PM
@ Andrew, according to the NuLabour Institute for Public Policy Research about 5.5 million British born people are already living abroad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6210358.stm
Where would you suggest ?
Posted by: wtwu | December 11, 2006 5:07 PM
Some of us have to stay to fight. If you love the country and don't want to see it all slip away, then we have to join together, not scatter ourselves across the globe in denial.
Posted by: anonymous | December 12, 2006 8:58 PM
The Decision is now available on their website
http://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/IPT_03_32_H.pdf
Essentially it finds that a case of "employment related surveillance" by private investigators, to see if someone was falsely exaggerating a bad back after he retired early from the Police and was awarded work injury related financial compensation, was not "directed surveillance".
Even though this was not authorised via RIPA, by being ruled not as "directed surveillance" , it removes the legal protection from a claim under the Human Rights Act and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights "in accordance with law" or other legislation, although, of course, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal could not rule on that.
In this very narrow sense, which may well not a case involving the Police and a former policeman, it was a Decision in favour of the complainant, the very first that they have ever made.
The Tribunal describes RIPA as
Posted by: wtwu | February 8, 2007 11:29 PM