Test case allows 'right to know' on MI5 files Richard Norton-Taylor Tuesday October 2, 2001 The Guardian
The government's blanket ban preventing anyone from knowing whether MI5 holds files on them is unlawful, it was ruled yesterday. In a landmark decision, a special panel of the new information tribunal quashed a claim by Jack Straw when he was home secretary that MI5 should never admit to holding files on an individual, even when the disclosure would not damage national security. The test case was brought by Norman Baker, Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes, who was involved in environmental groups in East Sussex in the 1980s. Last year he asked the security service if it held a file on him, and received a letter purporting to be from a serving MI5 officer signing himself The Mechanic. The letter told Mr Baker that his request had caused a crisis in MI5, which did indeed have a file on him. The agency had received information from Sussex police special branch, said the letter, which had a source in the South Downs Earth First group. The anonymous letter also claimed that Mr Baker's file listed him as a Greenpeace supporter. The file was closed in 1989 when he started work in the Liberal Democrats' whips office, regarded as "off limits" by MI5. Yesterday, the information tribunal said the evidence established a prime facie case that MI5 did process personal data on Mr Baker. But its task was limited to deciding whether Mr Straw's certificate - supporting MI5's "neither confirm nor deny" policy on personal files regardless of whether or not national security would be harmed - was reasonable. Its conclusion that the blanket policy - known as "ncnd" - was unreasonable could be the first step towards a spate of requests forcing MI5 to admit the existence of files on named individuals and reveal their contents. MI5 has an estimated 290,000 files on individuals it once considered subversive, including Jack Straw, Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary, and Harriet Harman, the solicitor general. However, anyone wishing to find out what MI5 has on them will still face procedural hurdles. David Blunkett, Mr Straw's successor, is likely to sign a more tightly drafted certificate. MI5 is still likely to insist on its "ncnd" policy. Such claims will then have to be challenged in court case by case. The decision was announced by Sir Anthony Evans, a retired judge who is president of the tribunal's national security panel. Mr Baker called it a "victory for the individual against the state." He said the ruling was a recognition that it was "improper and inappropriate" to grant a blanket exemption to MI5. He fully supported the need for MI5 to maintain secrecy for national security reasons but every case had to be assessed on its merits. John Wadham, his lawyer and director of the civil rights group Liberty, said he hoped the ruling would allow innocent people to see files on them. He added: "The blanket ban preventing this was ridiculous and unnecessary. The Data Protection Act still provides MI5 with more than adequate powers to prevent terrorists from seeing their files and to preserve national security." A Home Office spokesman said the government welcomed the decision, which would require careful consideration. The ruling did not "directly affect the status of any information that may or may not be held by the security service." However, independent commentators said it would be increasingly difficult for MI5 to maintain blanket refusal of access to personal files or even say whether it had a file on someone. Full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,561513,00.html Michael Keaney Mercuria Business School Martinlaaksontie 36 01620 Vantaa Finland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
