IN THE EUROPEAN COURT

55844/11

OF HUMAN RIGHTS BETWEEN DECLAN HEAVEY Applicant - and THE UNITED KINGDOM Respondent ________________________________________________________ ANNEX TO THE APPLICATION UNDER ARTICLE 34 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ________________________________________________________ CONTENTS Summary Statement of the facts Statement of alleged violations of the Convention and of relevant arguments Statement relevant to Article 35 of the Convention Statement of the object of the application SUMMARY 1. This application concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life arising from the interception of his communications by the Security Service (MI5) and/or Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) over a period dating back to September 2003. The applicant also alleges harassment, directed surveillance, the disabling of internet access at home and in public libraries, interference with a website, blog and emails and interception of privileged communications by one or both agencies. 2. The applicant invokes Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The applicant submits that the interference with his rights under Article 8 is not prescribed by law, that it does not pursue any of the legitimate aims in Article 8(2), and that the interference is not necessary in a democratic society. He also submits that there was no effective remedy available in respect of the interference, in violation of Article 13. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 3. The applicant, Mr Declan Heavey, is an Irish national who was born in 1960 and lives in London, England. He is representing himself.

1

A. The circumstances of the case 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. (1) Background facts 5. In September 2003 the applicant and his wife arrived in England from Ireland and for two years lived off their own savings while attempting to establish a network of those abused by church, now a non-profit organisation called Network for Church Monitoring (N4CM) at churchandstate.org.uk. The opposition they encountered was so severe that in July 2005 they were forced to go on state benefits, which were terminated by the Department for Work and Pensions on 27 September 2006 because the applicant did not 'sign on' that day, two days before he was in fact due to 'sign on', on 29 September 2006, pro forma. The applicant and his wife were subsequently forced to live rough on the streets of London for more than 2 1/2 years, where the applicant's case was dismissed by the High Court (Judicial Review), the Court of Appeal and the European Court of Human Rights (see paragraphs 14 and 15 below). 6. On 12 July 2009, the day before the applicant and his wife came off the street, the applicant emailed the Commissioner of the City of London Police, Mike Bowron QPM, complaining that a police officer had on the night previous threatened his wife that if she returned to the porch they had been sleeping in for almost a year, the police would move her and her belongings away – and throughout the night if she did not desist from returning. The next day the applicant received an email of response from Superintendent Lorraine Cussen upholding the stance taken by the City of London Police. However, that same day an acquaintance of the applicant's in America made telephone calls to Ireland and England and a flat was found for the applicant and his wife, in which they currently reside. Three months after getting a roof over their heads, the applicant finally had his benefits claim reinstated. 7. The applicant and his wife's live-in landlady is human rights activist Ms Belinda McKenzie. On 17 August 2011, within one week of the applicant's dispatch of his application to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) concerning the interception of his communications and directed surveillance, Ms McKenzie served the applicant and his wife with notice to vacate their flat by the end of January 2012; the applicant has established in an email to Ms McKenzie that although the notice was served on 17 August 2011, it had been backdated to 26 July 2011. It is noteworthy that MI5 whistleblower Mr David Shayler lived in this same house for a couple of years, until around 2007. According to the BBC, Mr Shayler “caused the biggest crisis of official secrecy since the spy catcher affair”. Around 2007, Mr Shayler changed his name to Delores Kane, declared himself to be Jesus, and became a squatter. A New Statesman article published in September 2006 featuring Mr Shayler and Ms McKenzie, titled “Meet the No Planners”, gives no indication that Mr Shayler believed he was the Messiah at that time; whilst a Daily Mail interview with Mr Shayler explicitly shows he believed himself to be Jesus by June 2007. He has never regained his normal self. 8. The applicant believes that the activities complained of in this application are directly linked to a 1997 High Court case that he was involved in in Ireland involving the RC Hospitaller Order of St John of God, and his subsequent move to England to establish a network of those abused by church. The four-day High Court case was the first wardship inquiry to be heard in public before a jury, which the applicant successfully defended in person. He alleged that the proceedings were an attempt to cover up wrongdoing by the Hospitaller Order of St John of God in the mid-1980s. The

2

applicant submits that MI5 and/or GCHQ are conducting unlawful activities calculated to intimidate him and his wife and undermine their campaigning activities. 9. On 10 August 2011 the applicant complained to the IPT that his communications were being intercepted in challengeable circumstances amounting to a violation of his private life. He also alleged harassment, directed surveillance, the disabling of internet access at home and in public libraries, interference with a website, blog and emails and interception of privileged communications by MI5 and/or GCHQ. The applicant has substantial evidence – described in his complaint to the IPT as “wide-ranging” (see paragraph 21 below) – to support his claims. For the sake of brevity, only the most salient facts are presented in the following two paragraphs. 10. The applicant submits that the extent of the manipulation of his emails has resulted in the shelving for over a year of his petition to the United Nations regarding therapeutic cloning which has been signed by more than 600 scientists and scholars from around the world, including 28 Nobel Laureates, 13 US National Medal of Science winners, seven UK Royal Medal winners, five Lasker Award winners and three winners of the Israeli Wolf Prize. The applicant has also had to shelve his statement to President Barack Obama and members of the US Congress regarding forest conservation that has been signed by a recipient of the Blue Plant Prize, widely considered the environmental equivalent of a Nobel award. The applicant and his wife’s campaigning activities have been further undermined by the disabling of their home internet access on several occasions, most recently for six weeks commencing on 4 July 2011; the narrowing of their broadband from time to time, even in public libraries; and by the targeting of the N4CM website. Since 2004 the website has been removed from the internet on four distinct occasions and has been vandalised twice, most recently on 8 February 2011 as the applicant was about to publish the first of what is now ten book excerpts from Nobel laureates. The Network for Church Monitoring Blog has also been vandalised, and the applicant's Skype account hacked. 11. The applicant further submits that the following incidents bare all the hallmarks of directed surveillance: (a) on 17 August 2004, immediately prior to the launch of their website, the applicant and his wife suffered a severe flood to their home from the flat above, causing extensive property damage; (b) on 22 September 2007, at a time when the applicant was answering questions in the JREF Forum relating to a letter he had posted to non-religious forums requesting small donations to help them survive on the street, his wife was assaulted as she slept beside him in a porch in central London (crime reference no: CR/007884/07); (c) on 8 March 2008, three days after an e-letter from the Home Office stating that it was unlikely the applicant's emails were being intercepted, their website was removed from the internet without a court order or due process; (d) on 4 September 2008, the applicant’s birthday, a trellis gate was installed in the porch mentioned in (b) above, in which they had been sleeping for almost two years; (e) on 18 June 2008, while still living on the streets and the same morning the applicant was due to post his second request for priority to the European Court of Human Rights, his principal bag containing all of their money and documents, including passports, was robbed in a day centre run by the RC Sisters of Mercy (see paragraph 15 below). (2) Domestic proceeding 12. On 16 June 2010 the applicant's MP, Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone, wrote to the Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, laying out the applicant's concerns regarding the interception of his communications. By letter dated 12 November 2010, Home Office Security

3

Minister Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones responded, recommending the IPT to investigate. However, the applicant has tried repeatedly since 2003 to put a stop to the harassment in its various forms, without success. 13. From 2003 to 2005, the applicant was in correspondence with senior officials in the European Commission concerning the difficulties he was experiencing with, inter alia, the administration of his electricity and gas accounts by NPower and Powergen respectively and the handling by Birmingham City Council of his payments of council tax. 14. The applicant and his wife were on state benefits from July 2005 until their termination in September 2006. During this period, the applicant twice applied to the High Court for permission to lodge a judicial review following unlawful suspensions of his joint claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) by the Department for Work and Pensions. Whilst the applicant's first application for judicial review resulted in the reinstatement of his joint claim JSA on the recommendation of the Court, the second application only resulted in the claim being terminated during proceedings because he did not 'sign on' two days before he was due to do so on 29 September 2006. Subsequent letters from the applicant to his jobcentre and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pointing out the mistake and requesting a review went unanswered, in breach of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996. 15. During the more than 2 ½ years that the applicant and his wife were forced to live rough on the streets of London (from 3 November 2006 to 13 July 2009), the applicant’s case against the Department for Work and Pensions was dismissed by the High Court (11 December 2006), the Court of Appeal (22 March 2007) and the European Court of Human Rights (7 October 2008). The reticence of the authorities to permit the applicant to pursue his case in the European Court of Human Rights was such that on 18 June 2008, the morning he was due to post his second request for priority to the Court, his principal bag containing all of his and his wife's money and documents, including passports, was robbed in the canteen of a day centre run by the RC Sisters of Mercy (crime reference no: 4215697/08). The applicant was informed at Bow Road Police Station on 24 June 2008 that the case had been struck out because the police were unable to obtain any CCTV footage whatsoever from the day centre; this has never been refuted by the charity in subsequent correspondence with the applicant. 16. Even though the applicant and his wife got a roof over their heads in July 2009, the applicant has since been battling repeated attempts to send both him and his wife back to the street. On 3 December 2010 the applicant filed a judicial review in the matter of Heavey v. Highgate Jobcentre Plus (see paragraph 17 below) – a related case against the jobcentre lodged with the Central London County Court under the Data Protection Act has resulted in a judgment in the applicant's favour, with the amount to be decided by the court. Nonetheless, his housing benefit payments were suspended (reinstated on 13 June 2011) because their local housing authority, Haringey Council, received a notification from Jobcentre Plus (of the Department for Work and Pensions) that the applicant's joint claim JSA was due to end on 8 June 2011, which was false. 17. On 4 April 2011 the applicant renewed his claim for judicial review in the above-mentioned Heavey v. Highgate Jobcentre Plus in order to challenge his lack of remedy under welfare law for discriminatory practice by private companies delivering welfare-to-work programmes. From 27 July 2010 to 26 July 2011, the applicant and his wife were mandated by Highgate Jobcentre Plus to participate in one such programme delivered by Action for Employment (A4E). During this period

4

Highgate Jobcentre Plus ignored all four of the formal complaints the applicant lodged with the jobcentre against breaches of contract by A4E. Perhaps even more concerning, the applicant was also complaining to the chairman of A4E, the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Prime Minister David Cameron, and throughout the period to Minister Featherstone, all to no avail. The applicant's renewal hearing in Heavey v. Highgate Jobcentre Plus is scheduled for 22 November 2011. The applicant and his wife remain deeply concerned about what lies in wait for them with the next private-sector provider of a welfare-to-work programme. 18. The applicant's complaint against Jobcentre Plus relating to the suspension of his housing benefit (see paragraph 16 above) has been referred by Minister Featherstone to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO file no: EN-117422/0009). The Parliamentary Ombudsman has decided that the complaint is one that should be referred back to Jobcentre Plus for resolution, with the option for the applicant to then approach the Independent Case Examiner (ICE) if he is dissatisfied with the response from the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus. In the event the applicant remains dissatisfied with the way ICE respond to his complaint, it would be open to him to write again to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, either direct (on the basis of Minister Featherstone's earlier referral) or through Minister Featherstone. 19. On 10 August 2011 the applicant lodged two complaints with the IPT requesting it to examine his allegations. First, the applicant complained under sections 65(2)(b) and 65(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) that his communications were being intercepted in “challengeable circumstances”, within the meaning of section 65(7) RIPA (ie under an interception warrant or in circumstances in which there ought to have been an interception warrant or where consideration ought to have been given to obtaining an interception warrant). Second, the applicant complained under sections 6(1) and 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and section 65(2)(a) RIPA that there was an unlawful interference with his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant also alleged harassment, directed surveillance, the disabling of internet access at home and in public libraries, interference with a website, blog and emails and interception of privileged communications by MI5 and/or GCHQ. 20. Within two weeks of the applicant’s dispatch of his complaint and HRA claim to the IPT, dated 10 August 2011, Facebook disabled his wife's account (see paragraph 26 below); their web host, SiteGround, twice blocked their IP address (see paragraph 25 below); their live-in landlady, human rights activist Ms Belinda McKenzie, served them with backdated notice to vacate what has been their home since 13 July 2009 (see paragraphs 6 and 7 above); and their local housing authority, Haringey Council, left the applicant with his first £76.92 shortfall in rent to pay (see paragraph 23 below). Nonetheless, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim within three weeks, on 1 September 2011, stating: “The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has carefully considered your complaint and Human Rights Act claim, and has concluded that it is obviously unsustainable, and thus falls within the provisions of Rule 13(3)(a) of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2000, such that, pursuant to s67(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Tribunal has resolved to dismiss the claim.”

21. The applicant feels particularly aggrieved by the decision of the IPT to dismiss his claim without calling upon evidence, which had been described by him in his complaint (form T2) as “wide-ranging”, including, but not limited to, correspondence, emails, memoranda, graphics and diary (blog), not to mention a Skype chat transcript exposing homophobic abuse by an anonymous perpetrator. The applicant also cited in his HRA claim (form T1) as well as in his complaint (form

5

T2) that he could adduce evidence other than his own; for example, the Tribunal was informed that N4CM chairman Dr Stephen D Mumford, founder and president of the Center for Research on Population and Security in North Carolina, USA, could have confirmed that several of the applicant's phone calls cut off in mid-sentence over a period dating back to 2005. 22. However, the applicant notes that the Report of the Intelligence Services Commissioner for 2010 states in paragraph 55 that during 2010, the IPT made six determinations in favour of complainants; and that, since its inception in 2000, the Tribunal has only ever upheld ten complaints. The applicant notes, in addition, that the New Internationalist issued a report in 2009 headlined, with good evidence, “Police surveillance and intimidation of political activists in the UK is hitting new heights”; and that, for example, The Guardian published an article in 2010 titled, “Peace campaigner, 85, classified by police as 'domestic extremist'”. 23. On 7 October 2011 the applicant filed an application for a judicial review against Haringey Council for leaving him with a £76.92 shortfall in rent to pay for each of the preceding two months: the applicant's first judicial review letter before claim resulted in his complaint being referred by the Council to an independent tribunal, which ruled the complaint outside its jurisdiction on 21 September 2011 and struck it out. On 7 October 2011, the same day the applicant lodged his claim with the High Court, Mr Antonios Michael, acting principal lawyer for the head of the Council's Legal Services department, emailed the applicant stating: “We appreciate that this means you have to budget yourself better, however, although the housing regulations allow us to pay per calendar month, we are not obliged to under Part 12 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006.” The applicant has contended in court papers that Haringey Council's flagrant breach of the rules of natural justice is making it virtually impossible for him to sustain an 'at risk' tenancy and avoid eviction and possible homelessness. 24. On 11 October 2011 Minister Featherstone referred the applicant's complaint against Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman for the second time (PHSO file no: EN-114794/0043). The applicant had complained that the N463 Judicial Review application for urgent consideration that he submitted on 3 December 2010 in Heavey v. Highgate Jobcentre Plus (see paragraphs 16 and 17 above) was only applicable at the time before it was seen by the judge. He further complained that he was informed that if he wished to expedite his renewal hearing, he would need to submit a PF244 Application Notice with the appropriate fee. On 6 July 2011 Ms Avril Powell, administrative manager of the Court's Complaint Handling and Enquiries Team (CHET), dismissed the applicant's complaint for maladministration, stating that CHET does not deal with complaint handling in relation to disputes involving jobcentres and benefits. On 2 September 2011, as requested by the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the applicant complained for the second time to CHET but did not receive a response. On 17 October 2011 the applicant was informed by email that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has taken the matter up with HMCTS. 25. Dr Mumford has been funding the N4CM website since 17 December 2010, after the website was removed from the internet by a web hosting provider that the applicant had paid for hosting until 2015. Since the applicant's complaint to the IPT, dated 10 August 2011, the new web host, the US-based SiteGround (voted the best web hosting company for 2008 and 2009), blocked the applicant and his wife's IP address for the first time on 16 August 2011, and then again on 22 August and 9 September 2011 – meaning they had no access to the site or its files. On 22 August 2011 SiteGround's advice was that despite the applicant's wife doing nothing unusual, she should

6

restrict herself to one browser tab to do web-based work as the webmaster for N4CM (a news portal), and that the applicant and his wife ought not to access the site at the same time from the same IP address. The applicant and his wife have been doing just that ever since, ie one N4CM tab between the two of them at all times from the same IP address. Nonetheless, with just one tab open and with the applicant's laptop switched off, on 9 September 2011 their IP address was blocked by the server's firewall for the third time. This restriction of the applicant's wife to a single tab for webbased work on the N4CM website not only decimates the development and maintenance of the site, but evidently offers no defence against future blocks. 26. Moreover, Facebook currently threatens to permanently disable the applicant's wife's account the next time she posts on a Facebook page with similar interests. On 30 August 2011 Minister Featherstone wrote to Facebook outlining the applicant's concerns and asking for them to be addressed. This has yet to prompt a response from Facebook into why the applicant's wife should be prevented from sharing items she posts on the N4CM website, including, but not limited to, exclusive and non-exclusive excerpts from books by eleven Nobel laureates (10 book excerpts) and seven prominent members of the UK House of Lords. B. Relevant domestic law and practice (1) The Human Rights Act 1998 27. The HRA incorporates the Convention into United Kingdom law. It allows proceedings to be brought before the courts where a breach of the Convention rights is alleged. Section 6(1) provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right, except where it is constrained to act in that way as a result of primary legislation which cannot be interpreted so as to be compatible with Convention rights. Under section 7(1), a person claiming that a public authority has acted unlawfully under section 6(1) may bring proceedings against it in the appropriate court or rely on the Convention right in any legal proceedings. (2) Interception of communications and directed surveillance 28. Since 2 October 2000, interception of communications and covert surveillance has been regulated by RIPA. The main purpose of RIPA is to ensure that the relevant investigatory powers of public authorities, such as interception of communications and various forms of covert surveillance, are used lawfully and compatibly with Convention rights. RIPA covers the purposes for which investigatory powers can be used, identifies the authorities who can use the powers and who should authorise their use, and defines the use which can properly be made of the material obtained. 29. Part I of RIPA is concerned with interception of communications and the acquisition and disclosure of communications data. RIPA incorporated a number of changes from the previous Act governing this area, the Interception of Communications Act 1985, which was substantially repealed, in part to extend the protection for human rights required by the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 simultaneously with RIPA (and the substantive incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law), and in part to reflect the altered nature of the communications industry. 30. Due to the potential level of intrusion into an individual’s private life associated with interception, RIPA requires that interception of communications in England and Wales can only be authorised by a warrant signed by a Secretary of State. The authorisation can only be given in the

7

interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. 31. Part II of RIPA provides a statutory basis for the authorisation and use by the intelligence agencies and certain other public authorities of covert surveillance (which covers both intrusive surveillance and directed surveillance) and also of covert human intelligence sources (undercover officers, agents, informants and the like). Part II regulates the use of these intelligence techniques and safeguards the public from unnecessary and disproportionate invasions of their privacy. 32. Directed surveillance is covert surveillance but not intrusive surveillance undertaken for the purposes of a specific investigation or operation in a manner likely to reveal private information about someone. Section 28 of RIPA provides for designated persons within each of the intelligence services (and within other public authorities) to authorise such action but only if the authoriser believes that it is necessary in the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime, or in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK, and that it is proportionate to what it seeks to achieve. (3) The Investigatory Powers Tribunal 33. The IPT was established in October 2000 under RIPA to deal with complaints against the exercise of powers under section 65(2)(b) and (4), including interception warrants. Members of the Tribunal must hold or have held high judicial office or be a qualified lawyer of at least ten years’ standing. Any person may bring a claim before the IPT and, save for vexatious or frivolous applications, the IPT must determine all claims brought before it (sections 67(1), (4) and (5) RIPA). 34. Section 65(2)(a) provides that the IPT is the only competent authority to hear allegations of infringements of human rights under Section 7(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, with the consequence that other courts or tribunals are not competent. Sections 67(2) and 67(3)(c) provide that the IPT is to apply the principles applicable by a court on an application for judicial review. 35. Under section 67(8) RIPA, there is no appeal from a decision of the IPT “except to such extent as the Secretary of State may by order otherwise provide”. No order has been passed by the Secretary of State. 36. Under section 68(2), the IPT has the power to require a relevant Commissioner to provide it with all such assistance (including the Commissioner's opinion as to any issue falling to be determined by the IPT) as it thinks fit. Section 68(6) and (7) requires those involved in the authorisation and execution of an interception warrant to disclose or provide to the IPT all documents and information it may require. 37. Section 68(4) deals with reasons for the IPT's decisions and provides that: “Where the Tribunal determine any proceedings, complaint or reference brought before or made to them, they shall give notice to the complainant which (subject to any rules made by virtue of section 69(2)(i)) shall be confined, as the case may be, to either – (a) a statement that they have made a determination in his favour; or (b) a statement that no determination has been made in his favour.”

8

38. The IPT has the power to award compensation and to make such other orders as it thinks fit, including orders quashing or cancelling any section 8(1) warrant and orders requiring the destruction of any records obtained under a section 8(1) warrant (section 67(7) RIPA). In the event that a claim before the IPT is successful, the IPT is generally required to make a report to the Prime Minister (section 68(5)). 39. Paragraph 55 of the Report of the Intelligence Services Commissioner for 2010 noted that during 2010 the IPT made six determinations in favour of complainants and that since its inception in October 2000, the Tribunal had upheld ten complaints (see paragraph 22 above). STATEMENT OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION AND OF RELEVANT ARGUMENTS 40. The applicant submits that there have been violations of his rights under Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention arising out of the matters set out above. A. Violation of Article 8 41. The applicant complains that his communications are being unlawfully intercepted in order to intimidate him and his wife and undermine their campaigning activities, in violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

42. The applicant also alleges harassment, directed surveillance, the disabling of internet access at home and in public libraries, interference with a website, blog and emails and interception of privileged communications. 43. The Court held in Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, no. 26839/05, para. 118, 18 May 2010, that mail, telephone and email communications, including those made in the context of business dealings, are covered by the notions of “private life and correspondence” in Article 8. 44. The applicant argues that the IPT’s conclusion that his complaint and HRA claim was “obviously unsustainable” lacked credibility. As noted above (see paragraph 20), within two weeks of the applicant’s dispatch of his claim to the IPT, Facebook disabled his wife's account; their web host, SiteGround, twice blocked their IP address; their live-in landlady, human rights activist Ms Belinda McKenzie, served them with backdated notice to vacate what has been their home since 13 July 2009; and their local housing authority, Haringey Council, left the applicant with his first £76.92 shortfall in rent to pay. 45. The applicant insists that his communications have been intercepted. He maintains that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he has been subject to interception and surveillance. He submits that objectively verifiable facts (notwithstanding the above-mentioned “wide-ranging”

9

evidence) supports the possibility of interception and directed surveillance, pointing to the allegation of church impropriety made at his trial and his long campaign for church monitoring. 46. The applicant notes that, under section 5(3) RIPA, any person within the United Kingdom may have his communications intercepted if interception is deemed necessary on the grounds of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom (see paragraph 30 above). However, in the case of Kennedy v. the United Kingdom, cited above, the Court found that none of the applicant's reasons alleging interception would appear to fall within the grounds listed in section 5(3) RIPA. In its admissibility decision in Kennedy, the Court considered that it could not be excluded that secret surveillance measures were applied to him. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the applicant could complain of an interference with his Article 8 rights. The Government's objection concerning the applicant's lack of victim status was accordingly dismissed. B. Violation of Article 13 47. The applicant further complains that he had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the violation of Article 8 of the Convention. He relies on Article 13 of the Convention, which provides: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.�

48. The applicant maintains that he had an arguable claim under Article 8, and that the IPT did not afford him a remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention. STATEMENT RELEVANT TO ARTICLE 35 OF THE CONVENTION 49. This application was introduced to the Court by letter dated 5 September 2011. 50. The applicant exhausted his domestic remedies by bringing a claim before the IPT (see paragraph 35 above). On 1 September 2011 the IPT dismissed the applicant's complaint and HRA claim dated 10 August 2011. There was no further domestic remedy. 51. This application has therefore been lodged within the period required by Article 35. STATEMENT OF THE OBJECT OF THE APPLICATION 52. The applicant seeks a declaration that there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention, an award of damages and/or just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention.

10

ECHR File No: 55844/11

Heavey v. the United Kingdom INDEX

Annex to the Application Form

1-10

PART ONE: INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL (IPT) DISMISSAL OF CLAIM 1. IPT – letter of dismissal (1.9.11)

12

2. IPT – letter of acknowledgement (15.8.11)

13

3. Completed IPT Human Rights Act Claim Form T1 (10.8.11)

14-19

4. Completed IPT Complaint Form T2 (10.8.11)

20-25

5. T1 and T2 Forms – supporting documents

26-32

6. Letter of Lynne Featherstone MP (7.12.10)

33

7. Letter of Baroness Neville-Jones DCMG (12.11.10)

34-35

PART TWO: WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF APPLICANT'S IPT CLAIM DATED 10 AUGUST 2011 8. Facebook – disabling of account (13.8.11)

36-39

9. SiteGround – first IP address block (16.8.11)

40-41

10. Landlady – service of backdated notice to vacate flat (17.8.11)

42-43

11. SiteGround – second IP address block (22.8.11)

44-45

12. Haringey Council – first £76.92 shortfall in rent to pay (23.8.11)

46-50

11