GCHQ ordered to destroy documents from illegal communication interceptions between kidnapped Libyan dissident and his lawyers

Watchdog body found that GCHQ had breached the human rights of Sami al-Saadi, an opponent of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi

Last week a number of select committee MPs recommended that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (pictured) recruit candidates on female-interest websites such as Mumsnet (AFP/Getty)

GCHQ has been ordered to destroy documents arising from its illegal interception of communications between a Libyan dissident kidnapped with the aid of British intelligence and his lawyers.

The watchdog body for Britain’s intelligence agencies found that the Government’s listening station had breached the human rights of Sami al-Saadi, an opponent of former dictator Muammar Gaddafi who was forcibly removed from Hong Kong with his family in 2004 and placed into Libyan custody with the apparent connivance of MI6.

Lawyers for Mr Al-Saadi, who received a £2.2m settlement from the British Government two years ago, said the ruling by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) was the first time in its 15-year history that it had upheld a complaint against the security services. It is also the first time that one of Britain’s intelligence agencies has been ordered to surrender surveillance material.

The IPT gave GCHQ 14 days in which to confirm it has destroyed the two documents, which contained material based on contacts between Mr Al-Saadi and his British lawyers in the run up to his legal claim against the authorities.

In a separate case relating to Government secrecy, another tribunal yesterday heard claims that documents relating to alleged corruption in a deal to arm the Saudi military were being wrongly withheld to protect national security.

The precise date and method of GCHQ’s interception of Mr al-Saadi’s contacts was not disclosed, though it is likely they were based on phone conversations or emails. Lawyers for Mr al-Saadi said they believed the case was the “tip of the iceberg” of unlawful interception of privileged material by GCHQ, MI6 and MI5.

The tribunal, chaired by High Court Judge Mr Justice Burton, found that the material obtained by GCHQ had infringed Mr Al-Saadi’s Article 8 right to privacy and a family life.

In its ruling, the IPT, which heard some of its evidence behind closed doors, said: “In order to emphasise the importance of the protection of legally privileged material, the Tribunal has required GCHQ to give an undertaking that the parts of the documents containing legally privileged information will be destroyed or deleted.”

The tribunal refused to disclose the documents to Mr Al-Saadi and also stopped short of awarding him any compensation, saying that although the intercepted material had been subject to legal privilege, it had not contained any legal advice. It had also not been disclosed by GCHQ to lawyers or officials working on the Government’s response to Mr Al-Saadi’s legal claim.

Cori Crider, director at the legal charity Reprieve, which helped bring the case, said: “GCHQ spied on privileged legal communications, in a case where they were being sued by a rendition and torture victim. We are pleased that one man has finally beaten the security services in this secretive tribunal.”

The IPT threw out a similar claim from another Libyan, Abdul-Hakim Belhaj, whose own case for compensation after he was allegedly seized and delivered to the Gaddafi regime along with his pregnant wife is due before the Supreme Court this year.

The IPT’s finding of “no determination” in the case of Mr Belhaj means it found there was either no spying or that any spying was lawful. Ms Crider added: “It’s inconceivable that Mr al-Saadi was spied on while Mr Belhaj was not. I confess I find this part of the decision very difficult to make sense of.”

The Government said it welcomed the finding by the tribunal that GCHQ “did not seek or gain any advantage in legal proceedings” from its intercepts.

In separate proceedings, the Information Tribunal heard further details of a claim that the Government was wrongly withholding information about alleged sweeteners paid in a 2010 deal to equip the Saudi national guard.

Officials have argued that the disclosure of the information would harm vital co-operation on counter-terrorism with the oil-rich kingdom. A ruling will follow later.