Direct link Share on

Monica Carss-Frisk QC and David Pievsky acted for the Commissioner, the successful applicant / defendant in this case, which raised important issues about the jurisdiction of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ("IPT"). The respondents / claimants were a number of individuals who had commenced claims in the High Court. They asserted that they had been deceived into commencing sexual relationships with undercover police officers. They alleged breaches of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR. The principal issue for the Court was whether the IPT was to be regarded as the only "appropriate tribunal" to hear the claimants’ human rights claims, in light of s7 of the Human Rights Act and s65 of RIPA. Mr Justice Tugendhat agreed with the Commissioner’s reading of the legislation. The answer partly depended upon a proper interpretation of s26(8) of RIPA, and in particular the meaning of the words "personal or other relationship". The Court agreed with the Commissioner that this could not necessarily exclude the possibility of a relationship which included sexual conduct. The lawfulness of any such relationship would need to be tested in the IPT. The consequence was that the human rights aspects of the claims against the Commissioner were struck out, and other aspects of the claims were stayed. 

Click on the link for the full judgment:

+44 (0)207 5831770