Gulamhussein and Tariq v United Kingdom, application nos. 46538/11 and 3960/12

The recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Tariq v UK has significant implications for the use of closed material procedures in civil proceedings in which article 6 ECHR is engaged.

Mr Tariq was employed by the Home Office as an immigration officer. In 2006, his security clearance was revoked due to his “close association with individuals suspected of involvement in plans to mount terrorist attacks” and he was dismissed from his job. Mr Tariq attempted to challenge the decision in the Employment Tribunal but the Home Office refused to disclose the evidence supporting its revocation of his clearance. A special advocate was appointed to represent him in closed proceedings but Mr Tariq complained that he was not provided with a gist of the accusations contrary to the principle identified by the ECtHR in A and others v United Kingdom (2009) 49 EHRR 29. In Mr Tariq’s appeal in 2011, however, the Supreme Court held that the principle in A and others did not require a gist to be provided in every case in which article 6 ECHR was engaged.

In Tariq, the First Section agreed with the Supreme Court, noting that article 6 ECHR did not mean that it was “invariably essential for someone to know the “gist” of the case against them” (para 84). It also noted that, despite the lack of disclosure, the special advocate had been able to make submissions on Mr Tariq’s behalf and the resort to closed proceedings had not been arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable.

Eric Metcalfe acted for the human rights organisation JUSTICE as third-party intervener, led by John Howell QC.

A copy of the Court’s judgment is available here.

The Supreme Court has considered the way in which the OFT conducted its ‘Early Resolution’ settlement negotiations with parties who were subject to its tobacco investigation.  In overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court has held that a mistake made to the benefit of one party in a settlement negotiation is not required to be replicated to the benefit of other similarly situated parties. It so concluded on the basis of traditional principles of public law rationality, rejecting the opportunity to fashion any stand-alone principle relating to mistakes in public law.

Daniel Beard QC and Brendan McGurk acted for the successful appellant, the CMA.

Click here for the full judgment.

The Divisional Court (Singh LJ and Holgate J) has today handed down judgment in judicial review proceedings brought by Liberty, challenging the lawfulness of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The case was identified by the Lawyer Magazine as one of its Top 20 Cases for 2018.

Today’s judgment concerns the compatibility with EU law of Part 4 of the 2016 Act, which contains a regime permitting the Home Secretary to require telecommunications operators to retain specified communications data (that is, data concerning matters such as the duration of telephone calls or emails, but not their content) for up to 12 months. The ability of public authorities to access such retained data can be of vital importance, for instance in criminal investigations.

Following the CJEU’s December 2016 judgment in Tele2/Watson, the Home Secretary had previously conceded that Part 4 of the 2016 Act is incompatible with EU law in two discrete respects, which are the subject of pending amendments to the legislation. The Divisional Court accepted the Home Secretary’s argument that the only appropriate relief in such circumstances was declaratory relief (including a declaration that the 2016 Act should be amended within a reasonable time), and that it was not appropriate to make an order disapplying the offending parts of the 2016 Act, as Liberty maintained.

Liberty also advanced a series of other EU law-based objections to Part 4 of the 2016 Act. These included an allegation that Part 4 is incompatible with EU law because it permits the ‘general and indiscriminate’ retention of communications data, amounting to a serious violation of privacy rights. Liberty contended that these matters should all be referred to the CJEU. However, the Divisional Court agreed with the Secretary of State that it should not make any reference to the CJEU, in some cases because it accepted the Government’s submission that the challenged aspect of the 2016 Act is compatible with EU law, and in other cases because the subject matter of Liberty’s complaint is already covered by a preliminary reference to the CJEU made by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

The Divisional Court rejected Liberty’s argument that Part 4 of the 2016 Act permits the ‘general and indiscriminate’ retention of communications data. The Court found that there was no basis for such a complaint, given (among other matters) the statutory requirement for the Home Secretary to be satisfied that retention notices are necessary and proportionate.

Monckton Chambers’ Gerry Facenna QC and Michael Armitage, led by First Treasury Counsel, acted for the Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

De La Rue International Limited has today announced that it will not be pursuing its threatened challenge to the award by Her Majesty’ Passport Office of the contract for the production of blue passports to Gemalto UK Limited. Following a two-week extension for the parties to exchange pre-action correspondence and information, the standstill period in the procurement passed at midnight of the 17th/18th April and no claim under the Public Procurement Regulations having been issued, HMPO will be proceeding to enter into the contract.

Philip Moser QC, Alan Bates, Philip Woolfe and Khatija Hafesji of Monckton Chambers acted for HMPO.

Kassie Smith QC and Ligia Osepciu acted for Gemalto UK.