|
|||||||
|
Cryptome DVDs are offered by Cryptome. Donate $25 for two DVDs of the Cryptome 12-and-a-half-years collection of 47,000 files from June 1996 to January 2009 (~6.9 GB). Click Paypal or mail check/MO made out to John Young, 251 West 89th Street, New York, NY 10024. The collection includes all files of cryptome.org, cryptome.info, jya.com, cartome.org, eyeball-series.org and iraq-kill-maim.org, and 23,100 (updated) pages of counter-intelligence dossiers declassified by the US Army Information and Security Command, dating from 1945 to 1985.The DVDs will be sent anywhere worldwide without extra cost. |
4 March 2009. Note text in red.
A sends: Here is a copy of a court document in regard to the Omagh Bombing civil case. "John Ware" did not mention this in his programme, (why not?). This is proof that British agents had access to the Omagh Bombers' car. Link to BBC programme that did not mention the big headline:
http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/74EB1205-A45B-48B4-BFFB-6BFB2DEABF94/0/j_j_MOR7434Final.htm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND _______
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION _________
BETWEEN:
MARK CHRISTOPHER BRESLIN AND OTHERS PLAINTIFFS -AND-
SEAMUS MCKENNA AND OTHERS DEFENDANTS __________
RULING NO 15 ________
MORGAN J
[1] This is an application by the plaintiffs who seek an order for disclosure directed to the Security Service, GCHQ, PSNI and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland of whether they have or have had in their possession, custody or power any audio recording or transcript of any such recording or any notes made from such transcript made by GCHQ of mobile telephone calls made on 30 April 1998, 1 August 1998 and 15 August 1998 referred to in the BBC Panorama programme broadcast on 15 April 2008 and production of any such material. Background [2] The bomb explosion in Omagh on 15 August 1998 had been preceded by a bomb explosion in Banbridge on 1 August 1998 and a bomb which was located and defused in Lisburn on 30 April 1998. On 14 September 2008 the BBC started to trail its Panorama programme which was broadcast the following day. The trailer alleged that GCHQ recorded mobile phone exchanges between the bombers on the day of the attack. It was alleged that well-placed sources told Panorama that GCHQ had picked up the words "were crossing the line" from one of the mobiles, this coinciding with one of the cars crossing the border into Northern Ireland, and that at 2:20 pm the phrase "the bricks are in the wall" was used to denote the fact that the bomb was planted, that phrase having been similarly used in respect of the Banbridge bomb. On the same day John Ware, a BBC journalist, published an article in the Telegraph newspaper alleging that GCHQ was monitoring the conversations that the bombers had during the 90 minutes it took them to take the bomb from the Irish Republic to Omagh. He alleged that there were transcripts of some of the bombers snatched conversations but that the information was not successfully exploited. He further maintained that a few weeks before the Banbridge bomb Special Branch had discovered a mobile phone number belonging to one of the bombers and that the head of Special Branch South asked GCHQ to continue live tactical monitoring of that phone. [3] The Panorama programme was broadcast on 15 September 2008. The programme carried an interview with Mr White who was a former Assistant Chief Constable and Head of Crime and Special Branch for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. He indicated that he was not in Special Branch at the time of the Omagh bombing but on the basis of his understanding from colleagues he believed that GCHQ had the capacity to carry out live monitoring of telephone numbers and to build up a matrix comprising the various numbers contacted by that phone. He indicated that sometime in July 1998 the Special Branch identified a phone linked with a dissident group and he believed that this number was the subject of live monitoring at the time of the Omagh bomb. There is no serious dispute that GCHQ had this capacity at the time and indeed Sir Peter Gibsons report of 18 December 2008 noted that dissident republicans were aware at that time of that capacity. Mr White went on to say that the information was subsequently provided to Special Branch South. It was further submitted that the material would have been made available to the Police Ombudsman who carried out an inquiry in relation to the Omagh bombing and to the Security Service because of their intelligence remit. [4] In a further affidavit on behalf of the plaintiffs it is contended that the Security Service and/or PSNI Special Branch have in their possession a recording or recordings made of transmissions from a covert listening device placed in the maroon Vauxhall Cavalier car used to house the bomb transported to Omagh on 15 August 1998 together with transcripts and notes relating to that recording. The basis for that belief is a conversation with Mr Ware who indicated that his inquiries revealed that some individuals in the relevant authorities had read transcripts that appeared to include telephone conversations of the bombers in the car that were one-sided. It was further alleged that those conversations stopped at the time the bomb was detonated. [5] Following the programme on 18 September 2008 the Prime Minister invited Sir Peter Gibson as the Intelligence Services Commissioner to review any intercepted intelligence material available to the security and intelligence agencies in relation to the Omagh bombing and how this intelligence was shared. Sir Peter Gibson submitted his report on 18 December 2008 but he indicated that its publication in the form in which it was presented would damage national security and would be in breach of legal restrictions on disclosure of material relating to security and intelligence. It was, however, considered necessary and lawful to publish a summary of the review. The report noted that the Ombudsman had criticised the fact that Special Branch did not pass relevant intelligence to the investigation team until 9 September 1998 and that evidential opportunities would have been lost as a consequence of the delay in passing such intelligence. Sir Peter Gibson stated that the evidence that he reviewed was consistent and clear to the fact that there was nothing to suggest either that a bomb attack was going to take place on 15 August or that the town of Omagh was to be the target of any bomb attack. He further stated that Special Branch did not identify to GCHQ any particular phone number as being of particular importance or relevance to a potential bombing (in Omagh or elsewhere) nor was there any evidence that Special Branch believed that GCHQ could pinpoint the location of a particular mobile phone. The Application [6] The entitlement to secure the disclosure and production of documents in the possession, custody or power of a third party in a personal injury action is found in section 32 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.
By virtue of Order 24 Rule 8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (NI) 1980 the application is made by summons and must be supported by an affidavit which specifies or describes the documents and shows that they are relevant to an issue arising or likely to arise out of the claim and that the person against whom the order is sought is likely to have or have had them in his possession, custody or power. Only those documents which could be required by virtue of a writ of subpoena duces tecum can be made the subject of an order. Order 24 Rule 9 sets out the tests which the court must apply in determining such an application.
[7] The plaintiffs submit that the information held by GCHQ and the other agencies is potentially relevant in a number of respects. It may support the plaintiff's contention that the telephone calls identified by them constituted a bomb run. The recordings might help to identify some of the persons involved. The content of the conversations might identify some of the individuals involved and the nature of the conversations may confirm that the telephone calls referred to in the trial were indeed calls between the conspirators to the Omagh bombing and other bombings. Although the respondents to this application maintain that the material produced by the plaintiffs is not sufficient to demonstrate that the respondents are likely to have or to have had in their possession, custody or power any documents which are relevant to an issue arising out of the claim they maintain that there is a more fundamental objection to disclosure as a result of the statutory background and it is to that and I now turn. The Statutory Framework [8] The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) provides for the interception of communications, the acquisition and disclosure of data relating to communications, the carrying out of surveillance and the use of covert human intelligence sources. Section 1 of the Act creates the offence of unlawful interception. (1) It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission by means of
Section 5 provides for a warrant regime.
Section 17 excludes the product of both warranted and unwarranted interceptions from legal proceedings.
Section 18 provides for a limited number of exceptions and in particular provides for disclosure to a relevant judge in certain circumstances. The term "relevant judge" includes a High Court judge in this jurisdiction.
[9] The history of regulation in this area has been considered in a number of judicial decisions and I am content to rely in particular upon the opinion of Lord Bingham in AGs Reference (No 5 of 2002) [2004] UKHL 40. The Interception of Communications Act 1985 was introduced as a result of the decision of the European Court in Malone v United Kingdom (1984) EHRR 14 in respect of the public telecommunications system. RIPA was introduced to deal with the decision of the European Court in Halford v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 523, which extended regulation to private telecommunications systems and introduced a range of safeguards. Although the tapping of telephones had existed on an unregulated basis pursuant to warrants issued by the appropriate Secretary of State prior to any legislative involvement it is clear that the intercepts were used for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime and not for the purpose of prosecuting culprits. The 1985 Act preserved that policy and empowered a Secretary of State to issue a warrant if he judged it to be necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime but not for the purpose of evidence gathering or preparing a prosecution. The 1985 Act also contained provisions the obvious purpose of which was to prohibit any reference in court to interception which had either been duly warranted or which should have been duly warranted. The provisions in relation to the issue of warrants by a Secretary of State were reproduced in sections 5-11 of RIPA and section 17 of the Act demonstrates that there was no intention to depart from the principle that the issue of warrants by a Secretary of State and all matters pertaining to such warrants should not be the subject of inquiry in any proceedings. Section 81 (5) of RIPA again drew a distinction between detecting crime and the gathering evidence for use in any legal proceedings. Consideration [10] The plaintiffs first contention is that the exclusionary regime set out in section 17 of RIPA is subject to the exceptions set out in section 18. In particular they rely upon section 18 (7) (b) which provides that disclosure may be made to a relevant judge in a case in which that judge has ordered the disclosure to be made to him alone. Section 18 (8) provides that the disclosure should not be ordered except where the judge is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case make the disclosure essential in the interests of justice. The context of such an order is assisted by the following two subparagraphs. Section 18 (9) provides that where in any criminal proceedings a judge orders disclosure and in consequence of that disclosure is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances requiring him to do so, he may direct the person conducting the prosecution to make for the purposes of the proceedings any such admission of fact as the judge thinks essential in the interests of justice. It is specifically provided in section 18 (10) that nothing in the preceding subsection shall authorise or require anything to be done in contravention of section 17 (1). [11] There is no statutory guidance on what constitutes exceptional circumstances for the purpose of section 18 (8) of the 2000 Act but I have been referred to three cases where this issue has been considered. Barracks v Cole [2006] EWCA Civ 1041 was a case in which the appellant was pursuing a claim against the police for racial discrimination as a result of her failure to be selected for a position as a Field Intelligence Officer. The appeal hearing arose as a result of an order made by an Employment Appeal Tribunal that the defence case should be struck out unless they made disclosure of materials to which the defence said section 17 of RIPA applied. The Court of Appeal noted that the absence of the material would prevent the appellant from scrutinising and challenging the reasons for her not being selected for the post but concluded that it would be possible for a meaningful hearing to take place in which the appellant and senior police officers could give oral evidence about whether race was relevant to the decision. Counsel for the police noted that if the police were unable to use the vetting information they would be disadvantaged but that there was nothing particularly unusual or surprising about the situation since there were other well-recognised instances of a litigant being precluded from access to all relevant information as in cases of public interest immunity claims. At paragraph 50 of this judgment Mummery LJ noted that it would be possible for disclosure of information possibly covered by section 17 of RIPA to be made to a Circuit Judge if and when the occasion were to arise during the hearing. That reflected the fact that a Circuit Judge is a relevant judge for the purpose of section 18. The reference to "information possibly covered by section 17" may indicate that disclosure in those circumstances was for the purpose of determining whether the material was in fact caught by the prohibitory section. The court allowed the appeal against the order striking out the defendants case for failing to disclose and remitted the case to allow the hearing to proceed without determination of the section 18 issue. [12] The issue also arose for consideration in Raissi v Commissioner of Police [2007] EWHC 3421 which was another police case in which this time the claim was for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. In that case counsel for the police suggested that in the absence of sight of the excluded material a substantial injustice might occur because the defendant would be unable to lay fully before the court the justification for the arrests. The plaintiff, supported by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, submitted that the real object of the exception in section 18(7) was for a court in an exceptional case to examine materials said to fall within Section 17 to see if it truly did fall within that section at all. The learned trial judge did not determine that debate but decided that the appropriate course was to allow the trial to proceed and keep open the section 18 issue throughout its duration. [13] The third case in which the exceptional circumstances argument was considered was a criminal case, R v Khyam [2008] EWCA Crim 1612. That was a case in which the applicant sought leave to appeal against a conviction for conspiracy to cause explosions likely to endanger life or cause serious injury to property. One appellant contended that telephone conversations between his client and co-defendants during the course of the conspiracy were exculpatory and that this would be demonstrated by an examination of the contents of any telephone intercepts. The court concluded that exceptional circumstances could not arise on the exclusive basis of the self-serving assertions of the defendant. The circumstances which may lead the court to depart from the statutory prohibition must be highly unusual and material. The court ruled that the disclosure responsibilities were properly fulfilled by both the Crown and the judge and relied on the assurances of counsel for the Crown for that conclusion. [14] These cases are inevitably of limited assistance. In the two police cases the material in question was potentially relevant to the motivation and state of mind of the police officers and use of it was sought by one or other of the parties in order to support their position. The material was in each case in the custody of the police although it is not clear to what extent it would have been available to those conducting the litigation. For the reasons indicated the court in each case was able to avoid having to come to a conclusion as to the breadth of section 18 by letting the action proceed. Nevertheless it is the submission of the respondents that section 18 (7) is only available for the purpose of enabling a judge to come to a conclusion as to whether the material in question is in fact caught by section 17. They point to the fact that the exceptions in section 18 do not enable the judge to disclose the information further and contrast that limited power with the broad power to disclose contained in section 18 (4) of RIPA where provision is made for the disclosure of any of the contents of a communication if it is a lawful communication unaffected by the warrant regime. [15] I am satisfied that the test of "exceptional circumstances" in section 18 (8) of RIPA is a stringent test and that the circumstances leading the court to depart from the statutory prohibition must be highly unusual and material. In this case the plaintiffs contend that access to any intercept material will enable them firstly to determine whether the phones identified by them were in fact part of a bomb run. It is not clear to me how the fact that GCHQ may have monitored a particular phone will assist in coming to that conclusion. If the monitored phones were indeed the same as the phones upon which the plaintiffs rely they have already called evidence concerning connections between those phones. If the monitored phones were not among the phones in respect of which evidence has been led the material is irrelevant to this action. [16] The second point made by the plaintiffs is that if they had access to the recordings they may be able to identify by voice those participating in the telephone calls. In considering that submission I am entitled to take into account the summary published by Sir Peter Gibson. At paragraph 26 he indicates that voice identification of those participating in a telephone call was imprecise. There was never complete certainty in the identification of a voice by listening to it or as to the real nature of the matters under discussion. Against that background it appears that disclosure for this reason is speculative. The third possibility put forward by the plaintiffs is that the conversation itself might tend to indicate those participating. That possibility is also addressed at paragraph 26 off to Peter Gibson's report where he notes that those dissidents conversing by phone rarely identified themselves or those to whom they spoke. [17] For those reasons I conclude that disclosure of these materials if it were to be ordered is likely to be of peripheral value in relation to the evidence in this case. The test of exceptional circumstances is designed to reflect the public interest decision made by Parliament that the warranted system of interception and everything connected with it should be prohibited from disclosure in legal proceedings in order to preserve secrecy associated with it in the interests of national security. In a slightly different context Lord Bingham referred to the need for a security or intelligence service to be secure in R v Shayler [2002] UKHL 11 at paragraph 25.
In my view the same principles apply in relation to the warranted interception regime. If there is any power to order disclosure other than for the purpose of determining whether the material falls within section 17 I consider that the evidential value of the material in this case is not such as to impinge upon the fairness of the trial so as to engage section 18 (8). I do not consider that this issue is affected as the plaintiffs contended by any public interest that this case may have as a result of the magnitude of the tragedy that occurred in Omagh on 15 August 1998. [18] The plaintiffs contend that a failure to disclose the intercept material gives rise to a breach of their right to a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights. The issue of the content of article 6 of the convention has recently been considered by the House of Lords in Secretary Of State for the Home Department v MB [2007] UKHL 46. In his opinion Lord Bingham addressed the interconnection between this right and the issue of national security at paragraph 32.
For the reasons set out in paragraphs 15 and 16 above I do not consider that this is the case in which there is any significant limitation on the plaintiffs access to the court as a result of any failure to disclose and accordingly I consider that the submission under article 6 does not impose any obligation to consider whether it might be possible to read down the provisions so as to make them convention compliant. I do not consider that any positive duty under article 2 of the convention adds anything to this issue. [19] That is sufficient to dispose of the matters raised in the summons. In the course of the submissions the plaintiffs referred to the possibility that some non-intercept material was held by the Security Service and disclosed to PSNI and the Police Ombudsman. I have already dealt with the entitlement to disclosure of such material in Ruling No 8. I repeat what I said at paragraphs 9 and 10 of that Ruling.
In my view the same principles would apply in relation to non intercept material held by the Security Service. I am also satisfied on the basis of the affidavit evidence provided by the respondents that any disclosure by the Security Service to the PSNI or the Police Ombudsman was made by the Director-General in accordance with Section 2 (2) of the Security Service Act 1989 and that any such disclosure restricted the ability of PSNI or the Police Ombudsman to disclose further. That restriction was imposed by the Director-General in accordance with the obligations imposed upon him by the 1989 Act and by virtue of that Act attracts the same prohibition on further disclosure as applies to the Security Service. [20] Accordingly I dismiss the summons.
|
|
|
|