One of the leading experts in UK surveillance law was “unfairly” refused security clearance for a senior role overseeing the intelligence services after MI5 raised “serious reservations” over his former associations with privacy campaigning groups. Eric Kind, a visiting lecturer at Queen Mary University London specializing in criminal justice and surveillance technologies, had been due to become the first head of investigations at surveillance watchdog, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (ICPO). Kind had high-level support from the ICPO and current and former police and intelligence services members, including David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for the job.
But the Home Office reversed a decision to give him security clearance after MI5 raised concerns that his work with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to reform surveillance meant he was “insufficiently deferential to the sanctity of confidentiality”, it emerged today. Judges found on 26 March 2021 that the Home Office had failed to reconsider Kind’s application with an open mind and that the decision not to give security clearance was “effectively prejudged”. The “whole tenor is of a decision-making process which was designed to appear to tick the boxes”, they said in a 20-page ruling.
Call for the independent appeal process.
After the decision, Kind – previously known as Eric King – said he hoped an independent appeals process for those joining oversight bodies would now be implemented.
“Robust independent oversight is essential for democracy and trust in the security and intelligence services. It requires a diversity of perspectives and expertise. That can only be achieved through a fair and impartial vetting process, which the court has found was not provided to me,” he said.
Vetting U-turn
Kind’s vetting officer initially recommended that he be given DV security for the job. He wrote that Kind’s background in “civil liberties culture”, his many friends who pursue civil liberties causes against the government, and his extensive knowledge of surveillance law was “precisely the reason he has been employed”.
Kind had given “credible reasons” at the interview why he would not disclose details of his work to others.
The evidence disclosed in the judgment shows that government vetting officers backtracked following MI5’s intervention.
In a phone call, a senior vetting officer told Kind that he did not have any concerns about his honesty during the vetting process. Still, his refusal of security clearance had “a lot to do with previous work and associations”.
Officials decided to take further representation from Kind, knowing that they had already decided that they would not reinstate his security clearance, the judges found. Government officials wrote: “Our decision will not be received well by ICPO as the subject was targeted for the job because of their background.” Their assessment will require “careful handling” as “it is based on information provided by Thames House [MI5] who IPCO is there to oversee”.
