The Investigatory Powers Tribunal

Kate Wilson v (1) Commissioner Of Police Of The Metropolis (2) National Police Chiefs’ Council

IPT/11/167/H

IN THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL

Case No. IPT/11/167/H

Before the Vice President, Lieven J and Professor Zellick KC

BETWEEN:

KATE WILSON

Claimant

-and-

(1) COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS (2) NATIONAL POLICE CHIEFS’ COUNCIL

Respondents

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. The 27 April 2021 and 25 October 2021 Orders of this Tribunal are revoked.

2. There shall be no disclosure, publication or reporting of any information which:

2.1 Discloses a Relevant Person’s (as defined below) identity (including any description or image capable of identifying a Relevant Person); and/or

2.2 Has the effect of disclosing a Relevant Person’s identity, or contributing to such disclosure, and which the person responsible for the disclosure or publication knows or suspects will have that effect.

3. Paragraph 2 above binds any and all individuals and/or legal persons (whether acting by themselves; or by their servants or agents; or by their directors or officers; or in any other way) but does not prohibit any disclosure to:

3.1 The Tribunal;

3.2 The Parties to this claim and their legal representatives in this claim and in the UCPI;

3.3 A witness in this claim and their legal representatives in this claim and in the UCPI, for the purpose of their giving evidence in this claim or to the UCPI;

3.4 Counsel to the Tribunal; or

3.5 Operation Elter, by the Claimant, Lisa (as anonymised in this claim) or Jane (as anonymised in this claim).

4. A “Relevant Person” is a private individual and not an employee of the Respondents:

4.1 About whom the Respondents and/or their officers or employees recorded and/or transmitted information, pursuant to authorisations granted under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA);

4.2 Who is, as a consequence of those authorisations, identified in Documentation;

4.3 Who is not giving evidence in these proceedings by way of a witness statement to the Tribunal, or giving evidence to the UCPI, in their true identity.

4.4 Who has not consented to an act of disclosure, publication or reporting which would otherwise be prohibited by Paragraph 2 of this Order. To that end, the persons listed in paragraph 3.2 and 3.3 of this Order shall be permitted to inform a Relevant Person that their name appears in the Documentation.

5. “Documentation” is:

5.1 Internal documents created by the Respondents and/or their officers or employees pursuant to authorisations granted under RIPA; and

5.2 Disclosed by the Respondents to the Claimant and the Tribunal for the purposes of the resolution of this claim.

6. A “Relevant Person” also includes:

6.1 For the avoidance of doubt, any person giving evidence in these proceedings by way of a witness statement to the Tribunal under a pseudonym (but for the avoidance of any doubt, the pseudonym is not to be taken as that person’s “true identity” for the purposes of the prohibition on disclosure or publication in paragraph 2 above).

6.2 The two individuals named in paragraph 6 of Lisa’s supplemental statement dated 8 April 2021.

7. Any person affected by this Order may apply, on notice to the Parties, to have it varied or set aside.

8. The following were referred to extensively in the course of the OPEN hearing and in the Judgment, and may be shared by the parties accordingly, subject to the terms of this Order:

8.1 The Parties’ Skeleton Arguments and any notes submitted to the Tribunal in OPEN;

8.2 Any witness statements relied upon by the Claimant (and their exhibits);

8.3 Any OPEN witness statements relied upon by the Respondents (and their exhibits); and

8.4 The documents disclosed into OPEN by the Respondents.