Beth v The Security Service
[2024] UKIPTrib 3
Christine Lee v Security Service
22 September 2023
[2023] UKIPTrib 8
Investigatory Powers Tribunal
Two people sued the secret service for damaging their reputations. The court said the secret service didn't have to share all its evidence because this wasn't a case about them being held prisoner – it was about getting money for past harm. The court said its normal rules were fair enough.
Key Facts
- •Two claimants, Christine Lee and Daniel Wilkes, brought claims under section 7(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Security Service.
- •Claims arise from a Security Service Interference Alert (IA) alleging Christine Lee's facilitation of donations affiliated with the Chinese state.
- •Daniel Wilkes' claim relates to the loss of his security clearance and employment following the IA concerning his mother.
- •The claims include public law grounds and alleged breaches of Articles 3, 8, 10, 11 and 14 of the ECHR.
- •The Tribunal considered whether Article 6(1) ECHR applies and whether open disclosure is required under Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3).
Legal Principles
Article 6(1) ECHR's applicability to Investigatory Powers Tribunal proceedings.
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 6(1)
Minimum disclosure requirements in cases involving national security and individual rights, as established in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3).
Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3) [2009] UKHL 28
The distinction between procedural and substantive matters in determining appealability.
Poyser v Minors (1881) 7 QBD 329
Outcomes
The Tribunal found it unnecessary to determine the applicability of Article 6(1) ECHR.
The main dispute centred on disclosure, and the Tribunal's procedures were deemed fair even if Article 6(1) applied.
The Tribunal held that the disclosure principles in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AF (No. 3) do not apply.
The claims are essentially civil claims for compensation for past alleged wrongs, unlike cases involving direct and ongoing restrictions on fundamental freedoms.
The Tribunal's decision on disclosure is not amenable to appeal.
It is considered a procedural matter, not a final decision on a preliminary issue under section 68(4C) of RIPA.
Similar Cases
National Council for Civil Liberties, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 926
EFG v The Security Service
[2024] UKIPTrib 2
Rights & Security International v Information Commissioner & Anor
[2024] UKFTT 296 (GRC)
Robert Fryers & Anor v The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
[2024] UKUT 48 (AAC)