The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) operates as a unique judicial body centered in London, with the ability to meet in Scotland and Northern Ireland. It often conducts its work behind closed doors, holding sessions that exclude the public and the press.
This tribunal deals with various issues. It hears complaints from people who feel they’re being surveilled without justification. It also considers appeals from communication providers when the government orders them to act in certain ways. Additionally, the IPT reviews surveillance regulations to ensure they align with human rights standards. The current president of the IPT is Lord Justice Rabinder Singh, who has expertise in administrative and human rights law, supported by a panel of judges and legal professionals.
The tribunal has seen a significant rise in its case load. In 2023, it handled over 400 cases—more than double what it received in 2017. However, many of these complaints get dismissed as trivial. This pattern highlights the tribunal’s role as an intersection between the legal system and state secrecy, reflecting public mistrust surrounding surveillance practices.
While many decisions go unpublicized, the IPT has addressed critical cases that touch on sensitive surveillance issues in the UK. Notable among them are rulings related to the disclosures made by Edward Snowden and the “Spycops” scandal, where undercover officers misled individuals into forming intimate relationships. In December 2022, the tribunal even penalized the Police Service of Northern Ireland for unlawful surveillance of journalists.
The IPT’s origins are rooted in the UK’s historical governance. In contrast to written constitutions elsewhere, the UK’s approach evolved from the Crown’s symbolic authority, leading to extensive surveillance capabilities without formal legislative oversight. Secretive government actions went unchecked for years, with no legal framework governing the interception of private communications until the 1980s.
A turning point came in 1977, when antiques dealer James Malone discovered police were tapping his phone. He took his case to the High Court, but the ruling favored the police, stating phone tapping was permissible due to a lack of explicit laws against it. This decision raised alarms about the compatibility with European human rights law, confirmed later by the European Court of Human Rights in the landmark 1984 case, Malone v United Kingdom.
In response, the UK government set up the Interception of Communications Tribunal (ICT) under the 1985 Act to create an independent review of surveillance activities. However, the ICT operated in secret and only communicated whether complaints were upheld or not, without providing detailed explanations. This secrecy meant that no complaints were ever validated, raising concerns about fairness.
The IPT emerged later, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, still designed to address fears about unlawful surveillance yet limited by stringent secrecy. Over the years, however, influences from human rights law prompted changes.
A significant shift happened in 2002, when two complainants argued for more transparency in a private hearing. They claimed the tribunal should uphold human rights standards. This led the IPT to sit publicly for the first time, challenging the strict rules of secrecy that had previously constrained it. Consequently, the tribunal began issuing open judgments on legal matters, although the government still controlled whether sensitive facts could be disclosed.
The concept of “neither confirm nor deny” has shaped how the IPT handles cases. Typically, the tribunal operates on a theoretical basis, assuming the complainant’s claims are true, and determines the legal implications without confirming any underlying facts. It keeps its investigations largely secret, returning to closed sessions once the law has clarified.
By 2015, the IPT moved away from simply endorsing government actions. The change came partly from the fallout of the Snowden revelations, which raised serious public debates about surveillance legality in the UK. Various groups petitioned the tribunal to probe GCHQ’s practices, leading to a public re-evaluation of the legal policies underpinning surveillance.
The IPT has since improved its transparency, frequently holding public hearings and issuing essential rulings on surveillance matters. Recommendations by figures like David Anderson KC prompted the government to adopt more explicit guidelines on surveillance practices, ultimately culminating in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which better outlines the scope of state surveillance and the safeguards in place.
Today, the IPT retains the discretion to conduct hearings privately or publicly, depending on the sensitivity of the case. It aims to strike a balance between transparency and national security concerns, requiring the government to justify any withheld information. Appeals from tribunal decisions can now be taken to the Court of Appeal, improving oversight.
Even with improvements, some of the IPT’s decisions continue to face criticism, given its origins and lingering ties to state secrecy. Still, through advocacy and judicial evolution, the tribunal has transitioned from a body shrouded in secrecy to one capable of addressing and clarifying state surveillance practices, mediating complex issues affecting citizens’ rights and governmental powers.
Bernard Keenan, a lecturer in law at UCL, focuses on surveillance, human rights, and state authority, documenting the historical context of these dynamics in his book, Interception.