The Home Office has failed in its bid to keep all the details of its data privacy legal row with Apple out of the public domain.

The UK government wants the right to be able access information secured by Apple’s Advanced Data Protection (ADP) system, citing powers given to it under the Investigatory Powers Act.

At the moment Apple has no such capability – such data can only be accessed by the user – and says it does not want to create what it calls a “backdoor” into ADP because of concerns it could be used for criminal purposes.

The government’s request prompted fierce criticism from privacy campaigners and some US politicians.

In February, Apple pulled ADP from the UK and in March launched legal proceedings against the government, in a case which is being heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

The government argued it would damage national security if the nature of the legal action – and the parties to it – were made public, what are known as the “bare details of the case”.

In a ruling published on Monday morning, the tribunal judges rejected that request – pointing to the extensive media reporting of the row and highlighting the legal principle of open justice.

“It would have been a truly extraordinary step to conduct a hearing entirely in secret without any public revelation of the fact that a hearing was taking place,” it states.

“For the reasons that are set out in our private judgement, 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,” it later adds.

The Home Office have been asked to comment but have yet to respond.

Civil and digital rights organisations in the UK which criticised the Home Office request have welcomed Monday’s ruling.

“This is bigger than the UK and Apple,” said Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group.

“The Court’s judgment will have implications for the privacy and security of millions of people around the world.”

The Open Rights Group campaigned alongside Big Brother Watch and Index on Censorship against the proposal to hold the hearing in secret.

Big Brother Watch interim director Rebecca Vincent says the judgement is “effectively chipping away at the pervasive climate of secrecy surrounding the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’s consideration of the Apple case”.

“The Home Office’s order to break encryption represents a massive attack on the privacy rights of millions of British Apple users, which is a matter of significant public interest and must not be considered behind closed doors,” she adds.