Z3 vs Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others

This case concerned the alleged misuse of legally privileged material obtained through covert surveillance of the claimant, Z3, while detained in HMP Belmarsh.

TLDR:

• Z3 claimed misuse of legally privileged material obtained through covert surveillance.
• The Tribunal determined it had jurisdiction over the claim concerning legally privileged material.
• The Tribunal found no intentional misuse of legally privileged material by the respondents.
• The Tribunal made no determination in favor of the claimant.
• The relevant appellate court for an appeal is the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

The claimant, Z3, brought a case against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Security Service, HM Prison and Probation Service, and the Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. Z3 alleged that legally privileged material (LPP) obtained through covert surveillance during his detention in HMP Belmarsh was misused in court proceedings.

On 2 November 2022, the Tribunal issued its judgment on the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, concluding it did not have jurisdiction over the interception of telephone calls made by the claimant but did have jurisdiction over the alleged misuse of LPP material.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had made extensive disclosures, and no further submissions were made by the parties. The Tribunal determined the claim based on written and oral submissions and the disclosed material.

The Tribunal's judgment was divided into OPEN, CLOSED, and IN CAMERA parts due to the sensitive nature of some disclosed materials. The essence of the claim was Z3's belief that LPP material obtained through covert surveillance was misused in other proceedings.

Mr. Jaffey KC, representing Z3, argued that LPP is a fundamental right and can only be invaded in exceptional circumstances. Mr. Palmer KC, representing the respondents, agreed on the principles of LPP but emphasized that confidentiality is a necessary precondition for LPP.

The Tribunal accepted that LPP is a fundamental right of importance to the rule of law and can only be invaded in exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal found that the monitoring of Z3's calls was not intended to obtain LPP material but was due to his status as a high-risk category A and TACT prisoner.

The sharing of transcripts with the police and Security Service was not intended to obtain LPP material but was related to Z3's conviction for terrorism offenses. The Home Office representative's request for access to transcripts was not aimed at obtaining LPP material.

The Tribunal concluded that the steps taken by the lawyers who saw the documents provided by the fourth respondent were sufficient and there was no intention to gather or misuse LPP material.

For these reasons, and for the reasons given in the CLOSED and IN CAMERA judgments, the Tribunal made no determination in favor of the claimant. The relevant appellate court for an appeal is the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.

Legal representatives: Mr. B. Jaffey KC and Mr. Tim Buley KC (instructed by Birnberg Pierce) for the claimant, Mr. Robert Palmer KC and Ms. Emily Wilsdon (instructed by Government Legal Department) for the first, second, and third respondents, Mr. Ian Skelt KC (instructed by West Yorkshire Police Directorate of Legal Services) for the fourth respondent, and Mr. J. Glasson KC as Counsel to the Tribunal.

Judicial Panel: Lord Boyd of Duncansby (Vice-President), Lord Justice Edis, Mr. Charles Flint KC

Case Citation Reference: [2023] UKIPTrib 7