Christine Lee v Security Service

Christine Lee v Security Service

The principles of minimum disclosure established in AF (No. 3) do not apply to these proceedings, as they concern claims for compensation for past alleged wrongs and do not involve ongoing coercive measures or severe restrictions on liberty.

Parties
Claimant: Christine Lee; Claimant: Daniel Wilkes; Respondent: Security Service
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Claim / Interim Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Disclosure principles in AF (No. 3) are not applicable; Tribunal's usual procedures are sufficient.
Legal Topics
Disclosure, European Convention on Human Rights, Procedural Fairness
Human Rights Public Law National Security Disclosure European Convention on Human Rights Procedural Fairness

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Lee

Claimant

Daniel Wilkes

Claimant

Security Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Claim / Interim Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6(1) ECHR applies to proceedings before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal
  2. 2 Whether minimum open disclosure required by AF (No. 3) applies to these proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The principles of minimum disclosure established in AF (No. 3) do not apply to these proceedings, as they concern claims for compensation for past alleged wrongs and do not involve ongoing coercive measures or severe restrictions on liberty.

Court Disposition

Disclosure principles in AF (No. 3) are not applicable; Tribunal's usual procedures are sufficient.

Orders

  • No further open disclosure required under AF (No. 3) principles.
  • Decision not amenable to appeal; any challenge must be by judicial review.