Khaled v The Security Service & Ors

Khaled v The Security Service & Ors

AF (No.3) disclosure obligations do not arise in this civil claim for misfeasance and conspiracy to injure, as there is no current restriction on liberty or ongoing incursion into Article 8 rights. Disclosure must be as full as possible consistent with national security, but the claimant is not entitled to see closed material where disclosure would be damaging to national security. The statutory test for withholding material is the same as for public interest immunity.

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 Closed Material Procedure
Outcome
Application for further disclosure refused; closed material procedure to continue as directed
Legal Topics
Disclosure Obligations, Closed Material Procedure, Article 6 ECHR, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy to Injure, Public Interest Immunity
Public Law Human Rights Law National Security Law Civil Procedure Disclosure Obligations Closed Material Procedure Article 6 ECHR Misfeasance in Public Office +2 more

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 Closed Material Procedure

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6 ECHR or common law requires AF (No.3) disclosure in a civil claim for misfeasance and conspiracy to injure involving national security material
  2. 2 Whether the Justice and Security Act 2013 and CPR Part 82 require further disclosure to the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the test for withholding material under JSA 2013/CPR 82.14(10) differs from public interest immunity

Ratio Decidendi

AF (No.3) disclosure obligations do not arise in this civil claim for misfeasance and conspiracy to injure, as there is no current restriction on liberty or ongoing incursion into Article 8 rights. Disclosure must be as full as possible consistent with national security, but the claimant is not entitled to see closed material where disclosure would be damaging to national security. The statutory test for withholding material is the same as for public interest immunity.

Court Disposition

Application for further disclosure refused; closed material procedure to continue as directed

Orders

  • Disclosure to the claimant limited to what is consistent with national security under JSA 2013 and CPR 82.14(10)
  • Closed material procedure to proceed; further closed rulings may be issued