3. You have attempted to find out from the Security Service (SSer) what information it holds regarding you.
4. The SSer has admitted that it holds some information about you. This information relates to correspondence that you had with the SSer, and, about a complaint that you subsequently made to the Security Service Tribunal (SST, the predecessor of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, IPT). However, the SSer would neither confirm nor deny (NCND) that it held anything further on you.
5. This, despite a fairly complex history, set out below, is where the matter stands today.
6. Your objective, as far as instructing Bates, Wells & Braithwaite (BWB), is to challenge the SSer's refusal to NCND and to be informed fully what data the SSer holds about you.
7. On 28 February 1997 you made a complaint to the SST. Your complaint was rejected, by a letter of 2 June 1997.
8. On 10 December 2001 you made a subject access request (SAR), pursuant to section 7(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) to the SSer.
9. On 20 March 2002, the SSer responded to your SAR by making a preliminary point that much of their activity was exempt from the requirement to comply with your SAR as it was covered by a National Security Exemption certificate (the Certificate), issued under section 28 DPA (which allows the SSer to NCND in circumstances covered by the Certificate). However, the SSer went on to confirm that it did hold some information on you, which was set out in an Appendix to the letter. The information set out in that Appendix appears to relate to an approach made by you to the SSer, its response to you, and, your complaint to the SST. Beyond revealing possession of this information, the SSer would NCND that it processed any further data regarding you.
10. On 7 May 2002, following the SSer's response to you, you appealed to the National Security Appeals Panel of the Information Tribunal (IT) on the basis that the information that you sought did not come within the terms of the Certificate.
11. On 9 May 2002, you also made a request for assessment, pursuant to section 42 DPA, to the Information Commissioner (IC).
12. On 16 May 2002, you also made a SAR to the ITP, regarding the data that its predecessor, the SST, would have had in relation to the complaint that you made to it (and any subsequent interaction the SST then had with the SSer).
13. In response to the appeal to the IT, the Home Secretary (who was the Respondent as he had issued the Certificate, his response being contained in a Respondent's Notice) submitted, in short, that your appeal was an attack on the NCND policy itself. This policy had already been unsuccessfully attacked in the Norman Baker MP case and should not be re-litigated.
14. On 19 July 2002, the IC responded to your request for assessment of 9 May 2002. The IC declined to deal with matters that involved the Certificate, and, noted that you had other avenues of appeal open at that time. The IC did find that the SSer had taken in excess of the 40 days required by the DPA to respond to your SAR. For this, the IC stated that it would write to the SSer to highlight the appropriate procedures under the DPA.
15. On 26 August 2002, after receiving no response from the IPT, you submitted another request for assessment to the IC in relation to your SAR to the IPT of 16 May 2002.
16. On 30 October 2002, the IPT replied to your SAR of 16 May 2002. In that response, the IPT stated that the "only" personal data it held about you was your name, date of birth and address. It then went on to NCND that it held any other personal data about you.
17. On 4 November 2002, the IC responded to your request for assessment in relation to the IPT. The IC stated that the IPT had taken in excess of the 40 days required by the DPA to respond to your SAR. Therefore the IPT had not complied with the DPA. However, as the IC understood that the IPT had now provided the requested information, it would not be taking the matter any further.
18. After some debate and confusion between the Secretary to the IT and the parties (both of whom had now instructed solicitors, BWB for yourself and the Treasury Solicitor for the Home Secretary) about whether your appeal to the IT was under section 28(4) or 28(6) DPA, it was settled that the appeal was actually under section 28(6) DPA. The Secretary therefore allowed the Treasury Solicitor to resubmit a response.
19. The Treasury Solicitor put in his response on 13 March 2003. In short, this response stated that an appeal under section 28(6) DPA required "proceedings" to be extant and that, in the absence of such proceedings being extant, the IT had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. This letter was followed by one of 14 March 2003 which stated that the previous response was a preliminary point and not the Respondent's Notice (which I cannot locate and, presumably, was never submitted).
20. On 7 April 2003, after some correspondence between BWB and the IC, the IC confirmed its view that the Certificate also covered the IPT.
21. By a note of 18 June 2003, the President of the IT, Sir Anthony Evans, set out his reading of the facts and the law so far and ruled that a preliminary hearing was required.
22. I understand that the matter was settled. By a decision dated 20 November 2003 (but signed by the President on 25 February 2004), it was ordered that, by consent, the section 28(4) and 28(6) DPA appeals be dismissed but that, should you re-appeal under section 28(6) DPA, the Respondents (the Home Secretary, the SSer and the IPT) would not take a point that the appeal had previously been dismissed.