The claimant an Algerian national had been the leader of a London based cell of the Groupe Isamique Armee (GIA), which was a terrorist organisation.

The Secretary of State served on the claimant a notice of intention to deport on the basis that his deportation would be conducive to the public good on the ground of national security.

The claimant argued that he faced a real risk of serious ill-treatment in Algeria, such that his removal there would be a breach of the UK’s obligations under Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

In response to the issue of safety on return, the Secretary of State relied upon assurances given by the Algerian authorities as to the treatment the claimant would receive if returned to Algeria.

The plaintiff claimed that in obtaining assurances from the Algerian authorities, the UK authorities had acted in breach of confidence and in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The claimant sought damages.

The Secretary of State conceded that the claimant’s Art 8 rights (right to respect for private and family life) had been engaged but argued that it was justified for the purposes of Art 8(2) of the Convention.

The Secretary of State applied for summary judgment on the claim and for a strike out of the claim.

The issue before the court was whether the disclosure of information was justified under Art 8(2) of the convention.

It was held that the disclosure had been necessary for the purposes of Art 8(2) of the convention. The court noted that disclosure should only be made in exceptional circumstances. In the present case it was done to protect the individual’s rights under Art 3 of the convention, and as such was justified.

A summary judgement was entered for the Secretary of State.