The UK High Court on Friday allowed Boris Karpichkov, a former senior double agent of the KGB and now a British citizen, to pursue legal action against the National Crime Agency (NCA) over the disclosure of his new identity.
Karpichkov had worked for the KGB in the Soviet Union before being recruited to operate in Latvia in 1984. Following Latvia’s declaration of independence in 1990, he continued his undercover work as an agent for the country’s security services. In 1995, Karpichkov began working undercover for the Latvian Security Services but was arrested by Latvian authorities the following year. He then moved to Moscow, where he claims to have endured torture at the hands of the FSB, the KGB’s successor. Returning to Latvia, Karpichkov went into hiding and eventually sought asylum in the United Kingdom in 1998.
As part of an extradition request from Latvia in 2018, the NCA disclosed his new identity and later his address to Latvian authorities, citing obligations under legislation governing European Arrest Warrants, through a channel called Supplementary Information Request At National Entities (SIRENE). The extradition request was subsequently refused. However, since SIRENE allows for information sharing between law enforcement agencies, Karpichkov alleges that Russia gained knowledge of his new identity and address. This has resulted in death threats, in Russian, delivered to his new address and risks to his life and safety. The judgment notes that Karpichkov has referred to himself as “a dead man walking” in media interviews, especially due to his ongoing outspoken criticism of Russia.
In light of these risks, Karpichkov has sought to sue the NCA for unlawfully disclosing his private information under sections 35, 37 and 40 of the Data Protection Act, 2018, the UK’s implementation of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). He also sought to sue the NCA for damages for misuse of his private information. The NCA had attempted to have the case dismissed on the ground that it was obliged by information-sharing laws to disclose this information.
In her 71-page judgment, Judge Victoria McCloud explained the NCA should have considered whether
the disclosures were truly ‘required’ by the applicable law in light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. If the disclosure were contrary to fundamental rights, she stated, the disclosure could not be considered as ‘required’. The NCA would be obliged to apply the UK Data Protection Act and either impose restrictions or refuse the transfer of data “unless modified to protect fundamental rights”. In light of this, she allowed Karpichkov’s case to proceed.
The case has attracted significant attention, shedding light on the complexities and challenges associated with intelligence operations, identity protection, and the balance between national security and personal privacy. It can bear implications on holding authorities accountable for safeguarding confidential information and ensuring the welfare of individuals with sensitive pasts, especially those formerly in national service. Notably, Karpichkov had previously attempted to sue MI5, alleging invasion of privacy and harassment of his family members.
