Kennedy v United Kingdom: ECHR 18 May 2010

The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to MI5 and GCHQ under the Data Protection Act 1998 to discover whether information about him was being processed had been refused on the grounds of national security. Complaints about such refusals to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (‘IPT’) chaired by Lord Justice Mummery were examined in private. They concluded with the IPT simply notifying Mr Kennedy that no determination had been made in his favour in respect of his complaints. This ‘meant either that there had been no interception or that any interception which took place was lawful’.
Held: The claim under article 8 failed. The domestic law, practice and safeguards relating to surveillance satisfied the conditions of that article. Leander v Sweden established that the requirement that the consequences of the domestic law must be foreseeable, before any interference could be said to be ‘in accordance with the law’ under article 8(2), ‘cannot be the same in the context of interception of communications as in many other fields’.
As to Article 6, the Court found it unnecessary to decide whether this article applies to proceedings concerning a decision to put someone under surveillance, because it concluded that, assuming it does, the IPT’s rules of procedure complied with the requirements of article 6(1).
[2010] ECHR 682, 26839/05, [2011] 52 EHRR 4
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 65(2)(b) 65(4), European Convention on Human Rights 8 13, Data Protection Act 1998
Human Rights
See AlsoKennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 20-Nov-2008
. .
CitedLeander v Sweden ECHR 26-Mar-1987
Mr Leander had been refused employment at a museum located on a naval base, having been assessed as a security risk on the basis of information stored on a register maintained by State security services that had not been disclosed him. Mr Leander . .
CitedDoorson v The Netherlands ECHR 26-Mar-1996
Evidence was given in criminal trials by anonymous witnesses and evidence was also read as a result of a witness having appeared at the trial but then absconded. The defendant was convicted of drug trafficking. As regards the anonymous witnesses, . .
CitedJasper v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Feb-2000
Grand Chamber – The defendants had been convicted after the prosecution had withheld evidence from them and from the judge under public interest immunity certificates. They complained that they had not had fair trials.
Held: The right was . .

Cited by:
CitedHome Office v Tariq SC 13-Jul-2011
(JUSTICE intervening) The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided . .
CitedSecretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others CA 20-Nov-2015
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law.
Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU:
(1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down . .
CitedT and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another SC 18-Jun-2014
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to . .
CitedPrivacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others SC 15-May-2019
The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the . .
CitedHaralambous, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Court at St Albans and Another SC 24-Jan-2018
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
CitedBelhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.430517