GCHQ’s covert surveillance of two international human rights groups was illegal, the judicial tribunal responsible for handling complaints against the intelligence services has ruled.



The UK government monitoring agency retained emails for longer than it should have and violated its own internal procedures, according to a judgment by the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT). But it ruled that the initial interception was lawful in both cases.

The IPT upheld complaints by the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and the South African non-profit Legal Resources Centre that their communications had been illegally retained and examined. The tribunal made “no determination” on claims brought other NGOs – including Amnesty International, Liberty and Privacy International – implying that either their emails and phone calls were not intercepted or that they were intercepted but by legal means.

The IPT ruling said: “[We are] concerned that steps should be taken to ensure that neither of the breaches of procedure referred to in this determination occurs again. For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal makes it clear that it will be making a closed report to the prime minister.”

It is the first time that a court has revealed that British intelligence agencies have spied on foreign human rights groups.



IPT ruling on GCHQ matters more for what it permits than what it rebukes Read more

The case against the monitoring agency follows revelations by the US whistleblower Edward Snowden. It was brought by Privacy International, Liberty, Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and a number of other international human rights groups.

Welcoming the ruling, Eric King, deputy director of Privacy International, said: “If spying on human rights NGOs isn’t off limits for GCHQ, then what is? Clearly our spy agencies have lost their way. For too long they’ve been trusted with too much power, and too few rules for them to protect against abuse. How many more problems with GCHQ’s secret procedures have to be revealed for them to be brought under control?”

He added: “Trying to pass off such failings as technical, or significant changes in law as mere clarifications, has become a tiring defence for those who know the jig is up. The courts are begrudgingly helping to ensure that the sun is slowly setting on GCHQ’s wild west ways. Now we need parliament to step in to fix what should have been fixed a long time ago.”

In relation to the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, the IPT found that “email communications ... were lawfully and proportionately intercepted and accessed ... However, the time limit for retention permitted under the internal policies of GCHQ, the intercepting agency, was overlooked in regard to the product of that interception, such that it was retained for materially longer than permitted under those policies.”

In respect of the Legal Resources Centre, the IPT said: “Communications from an [associated] email address ... were intercepted and selected for examination ... The tribunal is satisfied that the interception was lawful and proportionate and that the selection for examination was proportionate, but that the procedure laid down by GCHQ’s internal policies for selection of the communications for examination was in error not followed in this case.”

Janet Love, national director of the Legal Resources Centre, said it was “deeply concerned to learn that communications of our organisation have been subject to unlawful interception by GCHQ. As a public interest law firm, our communications are self-evidently confidential, and we consider this to be a serious breach of the rights of our organisation and the individuals concerned.

“We can no longer accept the conduct of the intelligence services acting under such a pernicious veil of secrecy, and we will be taking immediate action to try to establish more information. We urge the South African and British governments to cooperate with us in this regard. We are particularly grateful for Liberty’s efforts in spearheading this litigation and making it possible for this information to be brought to light.”

James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said: “Last year it was revealed that GCHQ were eavesdropping on sacrosanct lawyer-client conversations. Now we learn they’ve been spying on human rights groups. What kind of signal are British authorities sending to despotic regimes and those who risk their lives to challenge them all over the world? Who is being casual with human life now?”

Rachel Logan, UK legal programme director for Amnesty International, said: “[This] raises the wider question as to why the UK intelligence services were intercepting the communications of these two highly regarded human rights NGOs at all.

“Knowing that your mail has been read, or your calls have been listened to can stifle people into silence, leading to self-censorship. It is a clear interference with basic rights such as free expression and right to privacy. “Today’s ruling in relation to Amnesty tells us nothing. We still don’t know if we’ve been spied on at all, if we have been the subject of any targeted spying, if the tribunal thought any spying – if it did happen – was necessary and proportionate, or even if they had an entirely different reason for telling us nothing.”

The legal challenge was the first of many GCHQ-related claims to be examined in detail by the IPT, which hears complaints against British intelligence agencies and government bodies that carry out surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).



The civil liberties organisations are concerned that their private communications may have been monitored under GCHQ’s electronic surveillance programme, Tempora, the existence of which was revealed by Snowden. They also complain that information obtained through the US National Security Agency’s Prism and Upstream programmes may have been shared with British intelligence services, sidestepping protections provided by the UK legal system.

During the hearing last summer, Matthew Ryder QC alleged that the intelligence services are constructing “vast databases” out of accumulated interceptions of emails.

“If two out of 10 organisations who applied to the IPT found their emails were being illegally monitored, human rights fear, how many others are being targeted? Unless people or organisations submit claims to the IPT, it is argued, how will they know whether their communications are being unlawfully monitored.”



A government spokesperson said: “We welcome the IPT’s confirmation that any interception by GCHQ in these cases was undertaken lawfully and proportionately, and that where breaches of policies occurred they were not sufficiently serious to warrant any compensation to be paid to the bodies involved.

“GCHQ takes procedure very seriously. It is working to rectify the technical errors identified by this case and constantly reviews its processes to identify and make improvements.”