Khaled v The Security Service & Ors [2016] EWHC 1727 (QB) (15 July 2016)

Khaled v The Security Service & Ors [2016] EWHC 1727 (QB) (15 July 2016)

In a civil claim for misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure, where national security is engaged and no current deprivation of liberty or ongoing restrictive order is at issue, Article 6 ECHR and common law do not require AF (No.3) type disclosure. The court must balance disclosure obligations with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1727 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Abdulbaqi Khaled; Defendant: The Security Service; Defendant: The Secret Intelligence Service; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Defendant: The Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Misfeasance in Public Office and Conspiracy to Injure / Interlocutory Application Regarding Disclosure and Public Interest Immunity
Outcome
Application for further disclosure refused; limited redactions on grounds of public interest immunity allowed.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Closed Material Procedures, Article 6 ECHR, Public Interest Immunity, Justice and Security Act 2013, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy to Injure
Public Law Human Rights Law National Security Law Civil Procedure Disclosure Obligations Closed Material Procedures Article 6 ECHR Public Interest Immunity +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdulbaqi Khaled

Claimant

The Security Service

Defendant

The Secret Intelligence Service

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Defendant

The Home Office

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim for Misfeasance in Public Office and Conspiracy to Injure / Interlocutory Application Regarding Disclosure and Public Interest Immunity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6 ECHR or common law requires disclosure of sensitive material to the claimant in a civil claim for misfeasance and conspiracy where national security is engaged
  2. 2 Whether the Justice and Security Act 2013 and CPR Part 82 require AF (No.3) type disclosure in this context
  3. 3 Whether the statutory test for withholding material differs from the public interest immunity test

Ratio Decidendi

In a civil claim for misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure, where national security is engaged and no current deprivation of liberty or ongoing restrictive order is at issue, Article 6 ECHR and common law do not require AF (No.3) type disclosure. The court must balance disclosure obligations with national security, and the statutory test for withholding material is equivalent to the public interest immunity test. The claimant is not entitled to see sensitive material that would damage national security.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure refused; limited redactions on grounds of public interest immunity allowed.

Orders

  • No further disclosure of sensitive material to the claimant beyond what is consistent with national security and the Justice and Security Act 2013.
  • Redactions from documents on grounds of public interest immunity approved.