Introduction

he interception of for communications is at the Tcentre of government’s strategy to identify and frustrate terrorist conspiracies and other Change serious criminal activities. The Rules of the Game, our report on counter terrorism laws and practice,1 Lifting the ban on intercept recognises that surveillance and the interception of communications evidence in court must necessarily be in the front line of attempts to prevent further Britain is almost alone terrorist outrages. We cannot prevail without it. in not allowing intercept But though the gathering evidence to be used of intercept information by the in terrorism and other intelligence and law enforcement criminal trials. Without agencies from telephone calls, it, serious criminals may emails, fax and post is vital in go free and terrorism identifying terrorists and other suspects may be serious criminals, the government detained without charge. refuses to allow it to be used to bring them to trial. This is The weight of informed the result of section 17 of the opinion is that the ban Regulation of Investigatory Powers on the use of intercept Act 2000. Its purpose is to protect evidence should be the state’s interception activities lifted. The security from disclosure. Its effect is that services disagree. Isn’t if there is no other evidence it time to let Parliament against suspects they must either be released without charge, or in DEMOCRATIC DEMOCRATIC AUDIT decide? the case of suspected terrorists, detained without charge under control orders or by improper use of the immigration laws. The UK is the only country in the common law world that almost wholly prohibits the use of information obtained by the security forces and police by intercepting communications as evidence in criminal proceedings. The United States, Australia and Canada, for example, allow and use intercept evidence in criminal proceedings, as has the International Criminal Tribunal at The Hague hearing cases against Yugoslav war criminals in 2004.2 In the United States, intercept evidence has been used to convict those involved in terrorism and serious crime, including Al Qaeda plotters and five mafia godfathers in New York. Even in the British courts intercept evidence may be admitted in certain limited circumstances, including if it derives from foreign sources. In October 2006, for Evidence for Change | Lifting the ban on intercept evidence in court  example, intercept evidence central fear is that use of intercept the imposition of control orders from Austria, Belgium and Italy evidence in court would endanger on suspects; and the raising of the played a vital role in securing the their sophisticated capabilities, maximum period of pre-charge of a ring of Turkish agents and informants and could detention from 14 to 28 days.6 We people traffickers. But it was only entail great losses in the longer run. cannot state categorically that admissible in court because it was However, the experience both of the intercept evidence would have been obtained lawfully by the foreign law use of public interest immunity (PII) available for prosecutions against enforcement agencies. certificates in the British courts to the detainees, but it seems likely We are reliably assured that the protect sensitive information and that it could have been. If it had government would like to make similar procedures in seven other not, then it is reasonable to ask intercept evidence available in common law countries, surveyed what information precisely there court. The Prime Minister stated in by JUSTICE, suggests that means was against these suspects; and the House of Commons, just two can be found to prevent their the case for using extraordinary weeks after the 7 July attacks, that methods and sources from being legal measures appears weakened it is on the advice of the security compromised by the considered use further. services that the government still of intercept evidence in court. The groundswell of informed upholds the ban on its use in court: JUSTICE found that public opinion over the past decade interest immunity principles, which reinforces the Prime Minister’s It is not an issue on which there is are well established in the UK preference in principle for reform an objection in principle to using courts, work well in these countries and the Attorney General’s wish such evidence. On the contrary, to ‘prevent the unnecessary to find ways of satisfying the as a matter of principle, would disclosure of sensitive intelligence security forces’ concerns about prefer to use it rather than material’, intercept techniques, disclosing information that could not use it, but we have to take capabilities and sources.5 assist criminals. Lord Lloyd of account of our advice.3 On the other hand, the refusal Berwick, the former law lord who Last September, after being to allow this evidence to be conducted the government’s review impressed on a visit to the United used in court means that some of counter terrorism legislation for States by the gaoling of the five serious criminals go free, and a report in 1996, is introducing a mafia godfathers through the use that some terrorist suspects Private Member’s Bill in the House of intercept evidence, the Attorney are or will be detained without of Lords, that receives its second General told the BBC that it was a charge. A ‘shadow’ system of reading on Friday 16 March, to ‘vital tool’ for use against serious criminal justice, by which terrorist lift the ban. (He has also tabled criminals, including terrorists: suspects are detained without an amendment to similar effect to trial by special courts, has been the government’s Serious Crime We do have a need to use intercept created which subverts the basic Bill, which is currently before in court if we are going to principles of British justice and Parliament.) It is to be hoped that give ourselves the chance of violates human rights. This the government will take over convicting some of the most process arguably contributes to the this Bill and see it into law after dangerous and prolific criminals essential argument of the extremist full parliamentary scrutiny and in this country. elements within the British Muslim debate; or otherwise, that the He acknowledged the ‘legitimate communities that the United House of Lords will pursue the Bill concerns’ of the security forces, but Kingdom persecutes Muslim vigorously. said that they should be dealt with.4 people at home and abroad. The This paper surveys the case for government must do all it can in Intercept evidence and against the use of intercept the interest of all citizens to restore The Regulation of Investigatory evidence in criminal proceedings. this country’s system of adversarial Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) authorises We conclude that the current criminal justice to protect fair trial the covert interception of telephone absolute ban is unnecessary and due process, to convict the calls, either landline or from and counter productive; we are guilty and acquit the innocent. mobiles, email, fax and post, by the persuaded that the legitimate The ban is made all the more intelligence services, police and law concerns of the intelligence services objectionable as the government has enforcement agencies and other must be met; and we recommend consistently justified three phases of bodies. The purpose is solely to gain that the blanket ban should be lifted. its counter terrorism measures that information on the activities of those set aside due process and human who are suspected of being involved Intelligence concerns rights by reference to the difficulties in serious crime, terrorist plots or If reform is to be achieved, it is of producing evidence in terrorism other threats to national security. most important that the concerns of cases: the indefinite detention of But section 17 of the Act prohibits the intelligence services should be foreign suspects without trial (and the use of any intercept evidence taken seriously. Their objections fall later their improper detention obtained that discloses the fact of into three main categories, but the under the 1971 Immigration Act); the interception or the substance of Evidence for Change | Lifting the ban on intercept evidence in court  any communication (superseding Interception Warrants disclosed under RIPA, and Wales, 2001-06 the similar provision in section 9 of Year Issued In force on 31 December Modifications the Interception of Communications 2001 1,314 464 1,788 Act 1985). This ban does not apply to other information gained from 2002 1,466 515 1,885 covert surveillance, such as the 2003 1,878 705 2,525 ‘bugging’ of suspects using a 2004 1,849 674 3,101 concealed microphone, or footage In force on 31 March 2006 from hidden cameras. 1 January 2005 to 31 March 2006 ,243 553 4,746 There are legitimate concerns about the invasion of privacy by the process, making it clear that he The informed consensus such activities, but it is justified was expected, as Home Secretary, As we say above, there is an on the grounds it provides vital to agree the whole mass of warrants informed consensus – among which information in the fight against that came before him.8 As the table there are those who are known to serious crime and terrorism – and, above shows, a high number of be sympathetic to the executive’s indeed, in defence of ‘the right warrants – which grew substantially to life’, the government’s prime position on security matters – for in the wake of 9/11 – are being lifting the ban. The Joint Committee human rights obligation. RIPA authorised and modified. From 1 introduced safeguards to ensure on Human Rights (JCHR) January 2005 to 31 March 2006, – Parliament’s own committee of that the interceptions are lawful the Home Secretary and other and proportionate. Section 5 of the MPs and peers who are charged authorised individuals issued 2,243 Act stipulates that the Secretary of with safeguarding human rights - intercept warrants and a further State (usually the Home Secretary) reported in August 2004 that it had 553 warrants continued in force may issue interception warrants found ‘overwhelming support’ for from previous years (for Scotland, 11 only if she or he believes it to be lifting the ban. A formidable list of the relevant figures are 164 and necessary (reflecting Article 8 of the those charged by the government 43).9 No figures are given for the ECHR ‘necessary in a democratic with reviewing counter terrorism considerable number of warrants society’) in the interests of national legislation have recommended issued by the Foreign Secretary security, the prevention or detection lifting the ban: Lord Lloyd, in his (who has charge of GCHQ and 12 of serious crime or to safeguard the 1996 review of terrorist legislation; the Secret Intelligence Service, economic well-being of the UK. the Newton Committee review commonly known as MI6) and Warrants may also be issued in of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and the Northern Ireland Secretary; 13 accordance with an international Security Act 2001; and Lord warrants issued by the Foreign mutual assistance agreement. Carlile of Berriew, the official Secretary apply to communications The security forces and police reviewer of counter terrorist 10 may intercept communications from and to the UK. Very little legislation, in successive reports.14 without a warrant – for example, is known about the warranting of In evidence to the Joint when a kidnapper is telephoning external intercept. Committee, Lord Carlile said ‘I relatives of a hostage, or Under sections 57, 59 and think it [the ban] is a nonsense.’15 communications with a prisoner or 65, RIPA also established an Lord Newton supposed that the high-security psychiatric patient. Interception of Communications obstacle to lifting the ban was ‘in These intercepts are admissible Commissioner, an Intelligence the minds of people who oppose in court under section 18 of RIPA: Services Commissioner and an it…I find it virtually impossible to Ian Huntley was convicted of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal understand…why there should be a in December 2003 to ensure that the intercept and complete ban on the use of evidence partly on the basis of intercepted investigative processes abide by of this kind’, adding, ‘there was not telephone calls between him, his the law. (Section 16 established an a single member of … the [Newton] girl-friend and mother. Investigatory Powers Commissioner Committee who was not of the view Senior officials may sign warrants for Northern Ireland.) The that it was sensible to relax this on behalf of the relevant Secretary Commissioners’ reports are thin and ban’.16 The most notable informed of State in urgent circumstances generally uninformative – though authority who is implacably and similarly the Secretary of the Interception Commissioner Sir opposed to lifting the ban is Sir State or officials may modify Swinton Thomas’s latest report in Swinton Thomas, the retiring existing warrants. Applications are February was noticeably more open Interception of Communications normally granted, although there in response to complaints that his Commissioner, who reiterates his are rare cases of refusal which are previous reports have been ‘over- objections in his report on intercepts officially seen as evidence that the secretive’. The Tribunal, set up to from 2005-06 published in February Secretary of State does not apply a hear and investigate complaints, 2007.17 ‘rubber stamp’.7 ’s has yet to use its powers to quash Lord Carlile and Lord Newton memoirs give a brief insight into warrants and award compensation. believed that their view was Evidence for Change | Lifting the ban on intercept evidence in court  shared by many in the intelligence The value of intercept evidence prosecuting authorities are in favour community, ‘apart from possibly of relaxing the ban, since the use Equally, official policy makers, GCHQ…there is a general view of intercept is most likely to be of the law enforcement agencies and that GCHQ does not agree’, as Lord assistance in criminal cases, less the Interception Commissioner Carlile (rightly) told the JCHR, so in terrorism cases.25 The latest agree that intercept evidence is ‘but everybody else seems to agree, intelligence review, reported to an ‘effective’, ‘essential’, ‘crucial’ the House of Commons by Charles the police and MI5, that intercept and even ‘indispensable’ tool Clarke, the then Home Secretary evidence should be used in courts.’ in the detection and prevention on 26 January 2005,found that the Lord Newton spoke of ‘fairly clear of terrorism and serious crime. use of intercept evidence would indications that there was a division From the previously mentioned result in a modest increase in the of opinion even amongst the privy councillor review (see fn 18 of serious criminals, but intelligence agencies’. (Both Sir 8) for the then Prime Minister, not of terrorists, and would come Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Harold Macmillan, in 1957 to a with ‘serious risks to the continual Commissioner, and Andy Hayman, government consultation paper in effectiveness’ of the intelligence the Met’s counter terrorism 1999, official reports have stressed agencies.26 Yet Lord Lloyd estimated coordinator, have expressed the the significance of intercepted in his inquiry into terrorism view that intercept evidence should communications in a fast- legislation that the use of intercept be admissible, Hayman adding moving world of organised crime, evidence would have allowed a that ‘it does make us look a little bit international drug trafficking and prosecution to be brought in at least foolish that everybody else in the terrorism. In the 1999 consultation 19 20 cases.27 world is using it to good effect’.) paper, the government stated The legal profession is profoundly that, ‘Interception represents Justifying the ban unhappy about the inability to use an indispensable means of Lord Lloyd of Berwick, presenting intercept evidence in court, with the gathering intelligence against the his Private Members Bill for debate Bar Council, the Law Society and most sophisticated and ruthless in the House of Lords in November JUSTICE at the fore. Both Ken criminals’.22 The Interception 2005, said that for the intelligence Macdonald and Sir David Calvert- Commissioner’s report of February services the thought of intercept Smith QC, the current and former 2007 states that intelligence from evidence being used in court Director of Public Prosecutions, have intercept has been ‘crucial’ to ‘makes shivers run down their spoken out on the value of using the prevention of recent ‘serious spines.’28And it is the objections intercept evidence. Ken Macdonald prospective terrorist and criminal of the intelligence services, went to the heart of the matter in the attacks’.23 and primarily GCHQ, that have Law Society Gazette, ‘The sooner we Yet at the same time, the ban on prevented its use. can use intercept evidence, the its use in court severely restricts the The overwhelming objection on sooner we can stop talking about value of intercept intelligence and the part of intelligence services secret courts and detention without is used to justify serious exceptions to lifting the ban is that allowing charge.’ to due process and the right to a such evidence would seriously The JCHR’s own conclusion fair trial. Lord Lloyd, as the official compromise their interception was that ‘the case for relaxing the reviewer of terrorism legislation, put capacities – an argument that was absolute ban on the use of intercept the issue starkly in his 1996 report: evidence is overwhelming’; the put with great force by the Labour ban was ‘a disproportionate and One of the themes that has persisted peer, Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, unsophisticated response to throughout [this] Inquiry is the a former MI6 official, in the debate the legitimate aim of protecting difficulty of obtaining evidence on Lord Lloyd’s bill. Her argument intelligence sources and methods’. on which to charge and convict was that the domain of intercept terrorists, particularly those that The Committee also raised a was wider and more complex plan and direct terrorist activities than most people, including those widely shared feeling that it was without taking part in their actual who were the target of intercept possibly a symptom ‘of an over- execution. This has proved to operations, could possibly imagine protective approach to information be a serious weakness in the – ‘again and again,’ she said, which originates from intelligence anti-terrorist effort, especially in suspects wrongly assumed that the material.’20 The Home Affairs Northern Ireland. In many cases means by which they communicated Committee on detention powers the leaders of the paramilitary were secure: in 2006 reported ‘universal organisations may be well known support’ for the use of intercept The slightest revelation of enough to the police, but there is evidence in court and found that interception risks blowing for insufficient evidence to convict the Home Office had not produced ever the techniques involved them.24 ‘convincing evidence that the and in some cases putting at difficulties were insuperable: they Intelligence sources have risk human agents. It not only have presumably been tackled in indicated to us that it is to be means the end of that particular other jurisdictions.’21 expected that the police and operation but, by extension, Evidence for Change | Lifting the ban on intercept evidence in court  others which will be surmised to dream of admitting to court what to the use of intercept evidence be in place on similar types of material they hold. The French are exaggerate the dangers inherent targets. the same.’ These sources stress in the PII process and under- first the difficulty of ‘disentangling’ estimate the ability of its The very sophistication and intelligence and police material, safeguards to protect significant scope of British expertise in and express doubts about the interception capabilities interception rendered it ‘extremely security of admitting to judges, let from being revealed in court vulnerable’, if revealed or ‘even alone defence lawyers, sensitive proceedings. Only the prosecution hinted at,’ especially where material material through the public interest can apply to introduce evidence, was encoded or encrypted involving immunity (PII) certificate process. the defence cannot do so. There very sensitive technical means In their view lawyers would also would be no access to intercept and/or human agents. The loss of inevitably argue in the discovery evidence unless the prosecution access in such cases was usually has applied and the judge has permanent: process that it was not lawful to discriminate between one ‘secret’ agreed. It would always be open to A straightforward police tap on and another and may well embark the Secretary of State to issue a PII home national territory would on ‘fishing expeditions’.30 certificate; and the PII process is likely have little to lose in terms The second main set of objections quite capable of preventing details of giving away techniques or to allowing the use of intercept of covert surveillance techniques endangering sensitive sources evidence in court relate to the sheer and the identity or existence of and it is that kind of material volume of material that is collected informants being disclosed to alone which some other countries and the demands of translating, defendants, as has been shown in permit to be used in court. transcribing and ordering it for use serious criminal trials.33 Under [In countries] where more as evidence. These difficulties are the principle of ‘equality of arms’, sophisticated techniques are not insuperable, as our sources it is true, the prosecution is under employed by agencies other admit, but they suggest not a duty to disclose to the defence than the straightforward law unreasonably that the government any material that might be of enforcement agencies, it is only would be reluctant to make the assistance to an accused person. the more routine product of the additional resources required fully But the Criminal Procedure and law enforcement agencies’ that available to the agencies. Investigations Act 1996 prohibits 29 are produced in court. the court from disclosing any Lifting the ban Intelligence sources support material that is not in the public what Lady Ramsay had to say. There is a circular dimension to the interest. As JUSTICE argues, main argument that the intelligence GCHQ is absolutely opposed to it is in our view inconceivable that community raises against the use allowing the results of its sensitive a court would ever conclude of intercept evidence in court. technological capacities even to that the interests of justice Those involved in terrorism (and be considered for use in court, required details of surveillance to a lesser degree perhaps) in arguing that the very knowledge or interception capabilities to serious crime are already fully of what it can and cannot achieve be disclosed. Even if it were to aware of the possibility that their would assist terrorists. One source do so, however, it would still be communications are liable to be pointed out that terrorist rings even open to the Crown to withdraw intercepted. The very existence of publish internet manuals on counter the prosecution and thereby the counter-interception manuals terrorist capacities. ‘People don’t prevent the sensitive material on the internet proclaims this; so realise how fragile this material from being disclosed to the too does their deliberately opaque is,’ said one source. ‘They just defendant. [our emphasis]34 cannot keep their mouths shut.’ modus operandi. But they are still This person gave as an example the normally obliged to make use of It is plainly the case that leak of information to the New York telecommunication networks when allowing intercept evidence would Times in the 1990s that the security developing their conspiracies, place an additional logistical forces were able to listen in on especially when their activities are burden upon the intelligence and Osama bin Laden’s satellite phone international in scope.31 JUSTICE law enforcement agencies, as our conversations; ‘and he has never additionally argues that the fear sources have argued. But equally used a mobile phone since’. that terrorists and other serious plainly, it is not ‘insuperable’, They also reinforce her criminals might learn compromising as they admit; and certainly statement that material from more information on interception other common law jurisdictions sophisticated intercept is not used through disclosure in UK courts is surveyed by JUSTICE have in court in other countries, like undermined when one considers met and continue to shoulder Australia and the United States, the international nature of modern this burden. As for ‘fishing which do use the material from law terrorism and serious organised expeditions’, the courts and enforcement agencies. ‘The US crime.32 prosecutors are quite able to see National Security Agency would not Further, those who are opposed off such attempts. Evidence for Change | Lifting the ban on intercept evidence in court  Conclusion whom are ‘distinguished’. But such that the disclosure even of the extent of such intercepts would aid ‘the operations of people ‘do not have knowledge or The ‘shadow’ system of criminal agencies hostile to the state’. experience of intelligence and law 11 Joint Committee on Human Rights justice that we analyse in The (JCHR), Review of Counter Terrorism Powers, enforcement work’ and it would be Rules of the Game, under which HL158/HC753, TSO August 2004, para. 55. wise to discuss the issue with those 12 Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Inquiry into accused people may be detained who are knowledgeable on the Legislation against Terrorism, Cm 3420, without charge and denied both October 1996, chapter 7. subject. 35 a lawyer of their own choosing 13 Privy Counsellor Review Committee, op A dialogue of this kind would cit, paras 208-15. and the opportunity to hear the 14 Most recently, in Second Report of the clearly be valuable (and it is worth evidence against them, subverts Independent Reviewer pursuant to section noting that Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a 14(3) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 by long-standing principles of British Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, TSO, 19 February long-standing champion of reform, justice. The British criminal 2007, para.35. 15 JCHR, op cit, 16 June 2004, Q22. justice system is founded on the has frequently investigated and ‘discussed the subject’ with ‘those 16 JCHR, op cit, 16 June 2004. Q31-32. principles of fair trial and due 17 Report of the Interception of process while seeking to establish who are knowledgeable’). But there Communications Commissioner for 2005-2006, is a wider issue here. The complex op cit. whether accused people are guilty 18 JCHR, op cit, 16 June 2004, Q22, Q31. problem of intercept evidence has or innocent. It is incumbent on the 19 Daily Telegraph, 5 February 2005; and authorities to restore that system, now been under discussion for evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, 28 more than ten years. It is agreed February 2006, Q224. even under the strains to which 20 JCHR, op cit, para. 56. international terrorism subjects it. between all the agencies that at 21 Home Affairs Committee, Terrorism least some serious criminals could Detention Powers, HC 910, TSO, June 2006, Indeed, the fairer British justice is para. 116. be convicted on such evidence who and is shown to be, the stronger will 22 Home Office, Interception of would otherwise escape justice. Communications in the United Kingdom, be the country’s defences against Cmnd 4368, June 1999, p.1. See also the terrorism. The intelligence community is very Report of the Privy Councillors appointed largely autonomous and subject to inquire into the interception of Public interest immunity has communications, Cmnd 283, October 1957, been devised and developed to only to limited, and no doubt well- para 123 and Home Office,The Interception of intentioned, oversight. It is on Communications in Great Britain, Cmnd 7873, strike a balance in criminal cases April 1980, para 21. between an accused person’s right their advice that the government 23 Report of the Interception of has failed to act. In introducing his Communications Commissioner, op cit, para to a fair trial and the need to protect 46 (i), p. 10. the public interest against the Private Member’s Bill in 2005, Lord 24 Lord Lloyd of Berwick, op cit, para 7.1. disclosure of damaging information. Lloyd argued that Parliament should 25 Unattributable briefings. have the chance ‘to investigate and 26 HC Written statement, 26 January 2005, It is our view that PII provides Col. 19; see also the Report of the Interception sufficient safeguards against the to test that advice’: of Communications Commissioner for 2005- 2006, op cit, para 46 (ii), p.11. disclosure of intercept information The security services might even 27 Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Inquiry into that might benefit terrorists and be persuaded that their fears are Legislation against Terrorism, 30 October 1996 other serious criminals. The use of (Cm 3420), vol 1, p.35 groundless, but whether they are 28 HL Debates, 18 November 2005, col 1303. intercept evidence is not a magic or not, I do not believe that it is a 29 HL Debates, 18 November 2005, col 1305. bullet. It may well be, as we are matter that should be decided on 30 Unattributable briefings. informed, that it would have had 36 31 See for example the 1999 Home their mere say-so. Office consultation paper,Interception of no part to play in the cases against Communications in the United Kingdom, those terrorist suspects who were Notes op cit, para 1.3., and the 1996 Lloyd report, Inquiry into Legislation against Terrorism, para held in indefinite custody without 1 The Rules of the Game: Terrorism, Community 7.17. and Human Rights, Blick, A., et al, Democratic 32 JUSTICE, op cit, para 55, p.25. trial. But the near absolute ban Audit for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, 33 JUSTICE, op cit, para 56, p.25 on its use in criminal cases is November 2006, available at: www.jrrt.org.uk 34 JUSTICE, op cit, para 60, p.27 against the public interest: first, 2 JUSTICE has published details of the use of intercept evidence in court under seven common 35 Report of the Interception of it means that serious criminals law jurisdictions in Australia, Canada, Hong Communications Commissioner, op cit, para 44, p. 10. may be released when they should Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa and the USA, in its valuable paper, Intercept evidence: 36 HL Debates, 18 November 2005, col 1304. and could be prosecuted, and that Lifting the Ban, October 2006 terrorist suspects are detained 3 HC Debates, 20 July 2005. without trial when they too 4 news..co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/536430.stm Democratic Audit 5 JUSTICE, Intercept evidence: Lifting the Ban, might be prosecuted; secondly, it October 2006, p. 3. is a research organisation at the 6 JUSTICE, Intercept evidence, op cit, p.14-17. compromises the quality of British Human Rights Centre, justice. 7 See Bradley, A W, and Ewing, K D, Constitutional and Administration Law (14th University of Essex. Sir Swinton Thomas, in his Edition), Pearson Longman, 2007, Part III, p.524. Its latest report, report on interceptions, criticises 8 See, Blunkett, D, The Blunkett Tapes, The Rules of the Bloomsbury, 2006. ‘misguided’ and ‘often ill-formed’, Game: Terrorism, 9 Report of the Interception of Communications Community and Human but ‘no doubt well-intentioned’, Commissioner for 2005-2006, HC315/SE/2007/17, Rights, on counter- TSO, February 2007. people who continue to re-open terrorism legislation and 10 The practice of withholding these data follows strategy, is available the complex problem of the ban the advice of the report of the Privy Counsellor on the website of the on intercept evidence. Among Review Committee, Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 Review, HC 100, 2003-04, Joseph Rowntree Reform them he notes are lawyers, some of in December 2003, which warned in para 121 Trust, www.jrrt.org.uk Evidence for Change | Lifting the ban on intercept evidence in court