U.K. Loses Bid to Keep Apple Encryption Fight Secret

The United Kingdom's Investigatory Powers Tribunal has ruled that "the bare details" of a legal challenge brought by Apple over the government's order to create a global backdoor into encrypted iCloud data cannot be kept secret. The decision, delivered on April 7, 2025, by Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Johnson, rejected the Home Secretary's push to keep the case hidden, emphasizing the principle of open justice. As the tribunal stated, "We do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security."

Apple's claim, filed under case number IPT/25/68/CH, challenges the Secretary of State's powers to issue Technical Capability Notices under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The Home Office, represented by Sir James Eadie KC, argued that disclosing "the fact or details of the claim, or the identities of the parties" could harm national security, citing "the longstanding policy of neither confirming nor denying the existence of individual notices." Apple, backed by Daniel Beard KC and Fieldfisher, countered that transparency was vital, a stance the tribunal largely upheld after a private hearing on March 14, 2025.

Media reports, starting with a Washington Post story on February 7, 2025, claimed the U.K. had ordered Apple "to let it spy on users' encrypted accounts." Those reports were seemly corroborated when Apple pulled Advanced Data Protection from users in the U.K. The tribunal noted "extensive media reporting" globally, including by the BBC and The Financial Times, though it clarified, "This judgment should not be taken as an indication that the media reporting is or is not accurate." The Home Office leaned on a witness statement from Lucy Montgomery-Pott, Head of the Investigatory Powers Unit, who warned of "damage to national security" if details were public. Yet, the judges found her concerns lacked sufficient grounding, stating, "We are bound to accept the conclusion of the Secretary of State… unless we conclude that conclusion is irrational or otherwise vitiated by a public law error."


The ruling weighed open justice against security. The tribunal acknowledged its duty under Rule 7(1) of its rules to ensure "information is not disclosed to an extent, or in a manner, that is contrary to the public interest or prejudicial to national security." However, it stressed that "open justice is a fundamental common law constitutional principle," citing prior cases like *Dring v Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited*. The judges ruled that listing the hearing publicly—without party names—posed no real risk, rejecting a government request for a fully secret session as "a truly extraordinary step."

Third parties shaped the debate. U.S. Senators Ron Wyden and Alex Padilla, with Representatives Zoe Lofgren, Andy Biggs, and Warren Davidson, wrote to the tribunal, joining media like the BBC and privacy groups Liberty and Privacy International in advocating openness. The latter sought to attend the hearing, but the tribunal declined, noting it "would have prejudged the application" by revealing details prematurely. Still, their input informed the outcome.

The tribunal dismissed the Home Secretary's bid, stating, "We dismiss the respondent's application." Future case management, including a related Privacy International complaint, remains pending. While the ruling exposes the case's existence, it leaves the substantive dispute—Apple's fight against the alleged backdoor—unresolved for now.

Please download the iClarified app or follow iClarified on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and RSS for more updates on the case.