From: *** Sent: 18 February 2015 16:57 To: Rosa Curling Cc: 'IPT';

'Nick.Williams@amnesty.org'; Niamh Quille; ***; Richard Stein; 'Nathaniel

Baverstock'; 'Jonathan Glasson' Subject: RE: Belhadj and others - IPT

Dear Rosa

Thank you for your email. The basis of the concession is set out in my
earlier email, however for the avoidance of doubt the concession is a
general one which is not limited to foreseeability. That is why the
Respondents have stated that they intend to review the policies and
to involve the Commissioner in that process.

Kind regards

***
Lawyer
Team N1

One Kemble Street | London WC2B 4TS
Tel: ***| Fax: *** | DX 123242 Kingsway 6
Mobile: ***

Email: ***

From: Rosa Curling [mailto:rcurling@leighday.co.uk] Sent: 18 February

2015 15:11 To: *** Cc: 'IPT'; 'Nick.Williams@amnesty.org'; Niamh Quille;
***; Richard Stein; 'Nathaniel Baverstock'; 'Jonathan Glasson' Subject:
RE: Belhadj and others - IPT

Dear ***
Thank your for your email below. Please explain the basis of the
concession.
Do you accept that the content of the policies was unlawful for
failure to provide proper protection for legal professional
privilege? Or is this simply a concession about whether the fact the
policies were kept secret creates a breach of Article 8(2)?
Please reply this afternoon.
Yours sincerely
Rosa Curling

From: *** Sent: 18 February 2015 13:31 To: Rosa Curling Cc: 'IPT';
'Nick.Williams@amnesty.org'; Niamh Quille; ***; Richard Stein; 'Nathaniel
Baverstock'; 'Jonathan Glasson' Subject: Belhadj and others - IPT

Dear Sirs

Further to your email of 6 February 2015, we now have instructions.

The Respondents accept that since January 2010 the policies and
procedures for the interception/obtaining, analysis, use, disclosure
and destruction of legally privileged material have not been in
accordance with human rights legislation specifically Article 8(2) of the
ECHR.

It is the intention of the Security Service and GCHQ to work with the
Interception Commissioner in the forthcoming weeks (as SIS has
recently done in late 2014), to review their policies and procedures in
the light of the recent judgment in Liberty/Privacy and the draft
Interception Code of Practice. For the avoidance of doubt, the
Respondents do not accept that the fact that the regime has not been
in accordance with human rights legislation has prejudiced or in any
way resulted in an abuse of process in any civil or criminal
proceedings.

In these circumstances, we agree that the appropriate course is to
move to the Tribunals consideration in closed of whether any material
relating to the claimants (if it exists) was handled unlawfully; and that,
if necessary, the dates in March can be used for that purpose.

Kind regards

***
Lawyer
Team N1

One Kemble Street | London WC2B 4TS

Tel: ***| Fax: *** | DX 123242 Kingsway 6
Mobile: ***

Email: ***