Christine Lee & Anor v Security Service

Christine Lee & Anor v Security Service

The Tribunal refused the Claimants' application for disclosure because no cogent or persuasive reason was provided for disclosure to the Special Advocates, C17, C18, or their legal team; the material sought was minimally referred to in open proceedings and already sufficiently covered by skeleton arguments available to the media; fairness did not require disclosure as SIAC's exculpatory disclosure duties sufficed; and the principle of open justice did not override the statutory constraints and public interest in non-disclosure. Limited permission was granted only for disclosure of those parts of documents already referred to in open skeleton arguments or at the open hearing, subject to...

Parties
Claimant: Christine Lee; Claimant: Daniel Wilkes; Respondent: Security Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application in Investigatory Powers Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Permission to Disclose Documents to Third Parties
Outcome
Application refused except for limited disclosure as specified
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Documents, Open Justice, Collateral Use of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Investigatory Powers Tribunal Procedure
National Security Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure Disclosure of Documents Open Justice Collateral Use of Evidence Procedural Fairness Investigatory Powers Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Lee

Claimant

Daniel Wilkes

Claimant

Security Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application in Investigatory Powers Proceedings / Ruling on Application for Permission to Disclose Documents to Third Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal should permit disclosure of certain documents to Special Advocates and third parties in SIAC proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the principle of open justice or fairness requires such disclosure
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's rules or RIPA permit or restrict such disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal refused the Claimants' application for disclosure because no cogent or persuasive reason was provided for disclosure to the Special Advocates, C17, C18, or their legal team; the material sought was minimally referred to in open proceedings and already sufficiently covered by skeleton arguments available to the media; fairness did not require disclosure as SIAC's exculpatory disclosure duties sufficed; and the principle of open justice did not override the statutory constraints and public interest in non-disclosure. Limited permission was granted only for disclosure of those parts of documents already referred to in open skeleton arguments or at the open hearing, subject to...

Court Disposition

Application refused except for limited disclosure as specified

Orders

  • Permission granted to disclose only those parts of the Preliminary Open Response and skeleton arguments referred to in open skeleton arguments or at the open hearing, subject to agreement between parties and Counsel to the Tribunal.
  • Application for wider disclosure to Special Advocates, C17, C18, or their legal team refused.