BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT Section 16(1) required that intercepted material could only be read, looked at or listened to by the persons to whom it became available by virtue of the warrant if and to the extent that it had been certified as material the examination of which was necessary as mentioned in section 5(3) of the Act; and fell within section 16(2). Section 20 defined “intercepted material” as the contents of any communications intercepted by an interception to which the warrant related. 85. Section 16(2) provided: “Subject to subsections (3) and (4), intercepted material falls within this subsection so far only as it is selected to be read, looked at or listened to otherwise than according to a factor which– a. is referable to an individual who is known to be for the time being in the British Islands; and b. has as its purpose, or one of its purposes, the identification of material contained in communications sent by him, or intended for him.” 86. Pursuant to section 16(3), intercepted material fell within section 16(2), notwithstanding that it was selected by reference to one of the factors mentioned in that subsection, if it was certified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 8(4) that the examination of material selected according to factors referable to the individual in question was necessary as mentioned in subsection 5(3) of the Act; and the material related only to communications sent during a period specified in the certificate that was no longer than the permitted maximum. 87. The “permitted maximum” was defined in section 16(3A) as follows: (a) in the case of material the examination of which is certified for the purposes of section 8(4) as necessary in the interests of national security, six months; and (b) in any other case, three months.” 88. Pursuant to section 16(4), intercepted material also fell within section 16(2), even if it was selected by reference to one of the factors mentioned in that subsection, if the person to whom the warrant was addressed believed, on reasonable grounds, that the circumstances were such that the material would fall within that subsection; or the conditions set out in section 16(5) were satisfied in relation to the selection of the material. 89. Section 16(5) provided: “Those conditions are satisfied in relation to the selection of intercepted material if – (a) it has appeared to the person to whom the warrant is addressed that there has been such a relevant change of circumstances as, but for subsection (4)(b), would prevent the intercepted material from falling within subsection (2); (b) since it first so appeared, a written authorisation to read, look at or listen to the material has been given by a senior official; and 22