Richards v Investigatory Powers Tribunal & Ors

Claims must disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action. Claims which merely repeat earlier proceedings may also be struck out as an abuse of process. A claim is totally without merit only where it is completely hopeless, not merely because it is wrong or inadequately pleaded.

An extended civil restraint order requires persistent claims or applications which are totally without merit. For this purpose, at least three such claims or applications are required, and sufficiently diffuse claims may be treated as separate proceedings. Statutory schemes may exclude private-law claims, judicial review, or ordinary court consideration of intercepted communications. Those restrictions are compatible with article 6 where the claimant has had a fair opportunity to make representations.

The claimant brought wide-ranging proceedings against 22 defendants, alleging surveillance, interference with communications, environmental hazards, medical mistreatment, mail interference and related wrongdoing. Several defendants applied to strike out the claims, for certification as totally without merit, and for extended civil restraint orders.

The claimant also applied to set aside an earlier order striking out her claims against MI5 and MI6. The proceedings followed earlier claims and injunction applications, some of which had been dismissed or struck out as totally without merit. The central issues were whether the present claims disclosed reasonably arguable causes of action, whether they were abusive repetitions, and whether extended civil restraint orders were justified.

1. Disposition. The claims against the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, Undercover Policing Inquiry, Metropolitan Police, Hackney Council, the Army, Royal Mail, Peabody, the Hospitals other than Whittington Hospital, Virgin Media, UK Power Networks, Npower and Thames Water were struck out and certified as totally without merit. Extended civil restraint orders were made in favour of the relevant defendants. The application to set aside the order concerning MI5 and MI6 was dismissed.
2. Strike out and abuse. The claimant’s pleadings did not identify reasonably arguable causes of action against the relevant defendants. Many allegations repeated the September 2016 claim or earlier injunction applications and were therefore an abuse of process. A claim must be completely hopeless before it is certified as totally without merit.
3. Statutory restrictions. Under sections 67(4) and 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not required to determine complaints it considered frivolous or vexatious, and the claimant’s public-law and human-rights complaints could not be pursued in the manner attempted. Section 17 also imposed severe restrictions on court consideration of evidence concerning interception.
4. Extended restraint. An extended civil restraint order requires persistent totally without-merit claims or applications. At least three are required. The claimant’s separate and diffuse claims could be counted separately. The orders did not prevent future proceedings absolutely, since permission remained available.
5. Human rights. The materials did not establish arguable breaches of articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 or 14 of the Convention. Article 2 may require reasonable protective steps, and in some circumstances an ancillary investigation, but only where the necessary threat and evidential basis are shown. Strike out and restraint orders were compatible with article 6.
6. Whittington Hospital. The claim concerning an allegedly unauthorised contraceptive coil was not struck out. The claimant was given six weeks to apply to amend and serve any medical evidence.

This was a first-instance decision. Earlier proceedings and injunction applications had been dismissed or struck out by Dove J, Globe J and Jeremy Baker J. The court reconsidered the order concerning MI5 and MI6 and dismissed the claimant’s application to set it aside.