Communications with Security Service Tribunal in 1999

Dear Mr Brooks,

	We spoke on the phone last week and you kindly sent a copy of the form,
"Complaints about the Security Service".

	I have a few questions which I should like to ask you, before I undertake the task of
making a formal complaint. As you know I made a complaint in February 1997, and in June
of that year the tribunal made a bland and unsatisfactory statement that "no determination in
your favour has been made on your complaint". During our phone conversation I expressed
the view that the Tribunal was incapable of performing its functions and acts as a
whitewashing body for the Security Service. My questions are as follows;

(1)	Has the Security Service Tribunal ever during its existence found in favour of a
compaint against MI5?

(2)	Is the Tribunal able to disclose whether "no determination in your favour" is made
because MI5 claims to have no inquiries on a subject, or whether it is made because MI5
admits to actions against a subject but claims justification?

	If disclosure is not possible for individual cases, then in 1997 for how many cases
(out of what total) did MI5 claim justification?

(3)	Is the Tribunal able to investigate information such as British Airways passenger lists,
given that these could conclusively prove MI5 involvement? Would the Tribunal be forced to
rely on MI5 to carry out such investigations, or would it have some other means of
investigating? It might look slightly ridiculous for the Tribunal to rely on MI5 to investigate
their own misdeeds.

	When I made my previous complaint to the Tribunal in 1997 I gave very little
information as to the nature of my complaint. This time I intend to give as complete
information as possible; but before I do so, I would ask you to answer the questions above, to
outline the "ground rules" for a Tribunal investigation and reporting of its results.

			Yours sincerely,

Secondly, the question of whether the Tribunal is able to disclose "no determination in your favour" is because MI5 claims to have no inquiries on a subject, or whether it's because MI5 admits to having inquiries but claims they are justified. The answer to this one is in section 24, which says the ambiguity is intentional; and the Tribunal will in no circumstances give an unambiguous answer of whether MI5 claims or disclaims inquiries on a subject.

In section 27 of the report, SS Commissioner Lord Justice Stuart-Smith says the blanket denials "might lead some to speculate that members of the service are carrying out operations involving unlawful interference with property, such as the installation of eavesdropping equipment, without first obtaining a warrant from the Home Secretary." He goes on to try to deny this speculation. But we've heard from Peter Wright that this went on all the time in the 1960s. So why wouldn't it still be happening now? Of course it is.

The Tribunal Secretary had avoided answering the question from my previous letter, of whether the Tribunal had any independent investigative capacity. So I asked him again.

Dear Mr Brooks,

	Thank you for your letter dated 6 April enclosing an extract of the 1997 Report of the
Security Service Commissioner. This answers two of the three questions asked in my letter
of 25 March.

	The third question remains. In 1993 I travelled on a British Airways flight on which
there also travelled four men, one of whom stared at me, laughed and said, "if he tries to run
away we'll find him". I took this to mean that these were the men who had been pursuing me
for some time in the UK. This leads me to ask again the last question in my previous letter;

(3)	Is the Tribunal able to investigate information such as British Airways passenger lists,
given that these could conclusively prove MI5 involvement? Would the Tribunal be forced to
rely on MI5 to carry out such investigations, or would it have some other means of
investigating? It might look slightly ridiculous for the Tribunal to rely on MI5 to investigate their
own misdeeds.

	I would very much hope that some means is available to the Tribunal and
Commissioner to investigate possible MI5 malefaction, other than relying on MI5 themselves.
When I receive an answer to this question from you, I will work to put together a more
comprehensive and detailed complaint for the Tribunal's consideration.

			Yours sincerely,

Before deciding not to put another formal complaint before the Tribunal, I asked Robin Ramsay, editor of Lobster magazine, what he thought of the idea of making a complaint to the Tribunal. He replied;

RESPONSE  Yes it is a  waste of time. They will do nothing.

As for quoting me on the Security Service Tribunal - if you think my 
comments would mean anything, feel free. The problem people have is 
this: they almost have to go through the motions of going to the 
Tribunal for if they don't they will always be asked, 'Why didn't you 
go the proper authorities?'  (This is one of the chief functions of 
'the proper authorities'.)
 Robin Ramsay