Thanks for this useful comment! I want to make sure I understand a couple of your points. You write:

“The provisions of the MLAT are largely irrelevant. The treaty, not having been given effect by primary or secondary legislation, does not form part of the law of any part of the United Kingdom, and the court is therefore not obliged to have regard to article 1(3) (certainly not in view of section 7 of the Human Rights Act, which is part of the law of Northern Ireland) …”

I take this to mean, in US parlance, that under UK law the MLAT is not self-executing. Do I have that right?

You continue: “… and nor can the court review the Home Secretary’s compliance with the provisions of the treaty (as distinct from the decision to make a request in the first place, whose compatibility with the Convention is reviewable under section 7).”

I take this to mean that because the Home Secretary’s duties under the treaty are non-ministerial, there is no judicial review. (At least, that’s what I think the situation is in the United States, and so I am assuming you are making a similar point for the UK). Have I got it?

Order 53 was one of the provisions of the RSC which remained in effect after the introduction of the CPR, and is thus to be found in Schedule 1 to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/3132/schedule/1/made). It was subsequently revoked in 2000 when Part 54 (Judicial Review) was added to the CPR. At that time the relevant rule (Order 53 rule 4(1)) read:

“An application for permission to apply for judicial review shall be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when grounds for the application first arose unless the Court considers that there is good reason for extending the period within which the application shall be made.”

CPR 54.5(1) now makes identical provision, save for the reference to extending time; that presumably was considered redundant in view of the general power to extend time conferred by CPR 3.1(2)(a). I have no reason to believe that a different limit applies in Northern Ireland. (There is a slideshow at http://www.docstoc.com/docs/92763006/JUDICIAL-REVIEW-%28PowerPoint%29 which appears to confirm this – see slides 19 and 20.)

The provisions of the MLAT are largely irrelevant. The treaty, not having been given effect by primary or secondary legislation, does not form part of the law of any part of the United Kingdom, and the court is therefore not obliged to have regard to article 1(3) (certainly not in view of section 7 of the Human Rights Act, which is part of the law of Northern Ireland) and nor can the court review the Home Secretary’s compliance with the provisions of the treaty (as distinct from the decision to make a request in the first place, whose compatibility with the Convention is reviewable under section 7).

As to the merits, I think the Article 10 claim is misconceived. “Prevention of the disclosure of information received in confidence” is one of the grounds on which restrictions on the exercise of the Article 10 right may be justified. But Article 10 is not itself the source of a right to prevent such disclosure (or a right to damages should information be disclosed). What Article 10 does do is preserve any cause of action arising under national law in the event of disclosure of confidential information. So far as I can tell there is simply no breach of Article 10 here. (Nor, as far as I can tell, does McIntyre have any cause of action under Northern Ireland law; and if he does, PSNI most probably have a defence to it on public policy grounds.)

There might be merit in the Article 2 claim in view of Osman v UK (1998) 29 EHRR 245 (http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1998/101.html) (paras 115-116), but arguably the damage has already been done and disclosure of the remaining interviews isn’t going to make McIntyre’s position worse. In any event, the PSNI does have some discretion as to how it discharges its Article 2 obligations, and it should be able to do so in a fashion which does not preclude disclosure of the interviews. Injunctive relief is probably not appropriate here.