Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dear
Rosa
Thank
you
for
your
email.
The
basis
of
the
concession
is
set
out
in
my
earlier
email,
however
for
the
avoidance
of
doubt
the
concession
is
a
general
one
which
is
not
limited
to
foreseeability.
That
is
why
the
Respondents
have
stated
that
they
intend
to
review
the
policies
and
to
involve
the
Commissioner
in
that
process.
Kind
regards
***
Lawyer
Team
N1
One
Kemble
Street
|
London
WC2B
4TS
Tel:
***|
Fax:
***
|
DX
123242
Kingsway
6
Mobile:
***
Email:
***
Dear ***
Thank your for your email below. Please explain the basis of the
concession.
Do you accept that the content of the policies was unlawful for
failure to provide proper protection for legal professional
privilege? Or is this simply a concession about whether the fact the
policies were kept secret creates a breach of Article 8(2)?
Please reply this afternoon.
Yours sincerely
Rosa Curling
From: *** Sent: 18 February 2015 13:31 To: Rosa Curling Cc: 'IPT';
'Nick.Williams@amnesty.org'; Niamh Quille; ***; Richard Stein; 'Nathaniel
Baverstock'; 'Jonathan Glasson' Subject: Belhadj and others - IPT
Dear
Sirs
Further
to
your
email
of
6
February
2015,
we
now
have
instructions.
The
Respondents
accept
that
since
January
2010
the
policies
and
procedures
for
the
interception/obtaining,
analysis,
use,
disclosure
and
destruction
of
legally
privileged
material
have
not
been
in
accordance
with
human
rights
legislation
specifically
Article
8(2)
of
the
ECHR.
It
is
the
intention
of
the
Security
Service
and
GCHQ
to
work
with
the
Interception
Commissioner
in
the
forthcoming
weeks
(as
SIS
has
recently
done
in
late
2014),
to
review
their
policies
and
procedures
in
the
light
of
the
recent
judgment
in
Liberty/Privacy
and
the
draft
Interception
Code
of
Practice.
For
the
avoidance
of
doubt,
the
Respondents
do
not
accept
that
the
fact
that
the
regime
has
not
been
in
accordance
with
human
rights
legislation
has
prejudiced
or
in
any
way
resulted
in
an
abuse
of
process
in
any
civil
or
criminal
proceedings.
In
these
circumstances,
we
agree
that
the
appropriate
course
is
to
move
to
the
Tribunals
consideration
in
closed
of
whether
any
material
relating
to
the
claimants
(if
it
exists)
was
handled
unlawfully;
and
that,
if
necessary,
the
dates
in
March
can
be
used
for
that
purpose.
Kind
regards
***
Lawyer
Team
N1