Tribunal rules against government bid to keep public in the dark over controversial data access case involving Apple’s encrypted services
The British government has suffered a legal setback after judges ruled it could not keep secret the existence of a legal case brought by Apple over the UK’s surveillance powers.
On Monday, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal rejected an application by the Home Office to suppress the basic facts of an ongoing dispute with the tech giant.
The case centres around a challenge from Apple concerning the UK’s ability to issue technical capability notices (TCNs) under the Investigatory Powers Act – legal demands that can compel companies to modify their systems to allow data access.
According to the tribunal’s judgment, the Home Office had claimed that revealing even the existence of the claim or the parties involved could pose risks to national security. However, Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Johnson concluded that such transparency would not harm public interest or compromise national safety.
The ruling brings to light that Apple has taken legal action after reportedly receiving a TCN from the government, seeking access to the company’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) service – a tool that encrypts data stored in the cloud. Apple responded by removing ADP from the UK, maintaining its stance that it will never create “backdoors” in its systems for government access.
Neither the Home Office nor Apple has officially confirmed the details of the TCN or the accuracy of media coverage regarding it. The judges emphasised that their ruling should not be interpreted as confirmation or denial of the specific claims made by journalists.
Last month’s hearing into the matter was held entirely behind closed doors, with media outlets including the Guardian, BBC, Financial Times, and PA news agency denied entry and barred from knowing who was involved.
Media organisations had asked for public access to the proceedings and identification of participants, citing transparency. The judges acknowledged the possibility that future sessions may be held partially in public, although this remains undecided.
Under current rules, those served with a TCN cannot disclose its existence without authorisation from the home secretary. While tribunal guidelines advise public hearings should be the default, exceptions are made where disclosure may endanger national security.
Legal experts suggest that despite the court’s decision to permit the publication of limited case details, it is improbable that deeper insight into the government’s legal arguments will follow.
Ross McKenzie, a data protection lawyer with Addleshaw Goddard, noted that any forthcoming rulings are likely to remain highly limited, providing only broad legal justifications.
A Home Office representative declined to discuss the case directly but defended the government’s surveillance powers, citing their role in thwarting terrorism and serious criminal threats.
“These powers have saved lives and dismantled plots targeting the UK,” the spokesperson said, stressing the importance of adapting investigatory tools as technologies evolve.
