header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
27 February 2015 / Nicholas Griffin KC , Gordon Nardell KC
Issue: 7642 / Categories: Features , Human rights , Data protection , Freedom of Information
printer mail-detail

Access all areas?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7642_osullivan

Overriding lawyer-client & confidential communications is incompatible with the rule of law, as Nicholas Griffin QC, Robert O’Sullivan QC & Gordon Nardell QC explain

On 11 January the prime minister attended the unity march in Paris following the murders of 17 journalists, shoppers and police officers in that city by terrorists. He was there in a demonstration of solidarity with the French, condemning the attacks as unacceptable in a free, open and tolerant country. And yet at the same time he was advocating ever greater powers for the police and the security agencies to intrude on our private communications. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg noted the irony, commenting on politicians: “who say in one breath that they will defend freedom of expression and then in the next advocate a huge encroachment on the freedom of all British citizens”.

This is the difficult atmosphere in which decisions must be made about the proper extent of powers for the state to access our communications. In this article we focus primarily

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll