header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Beyond reach?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
12 February 2016 / Rebecca Dix
Issue: 7686 / Categories: Features , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail
nlj_7686_dix

Rebecca Dix reports on government attempts to tackle escalating cyber-crime

When a person or organisation has been a victim of online crime the responsibility falls to the enforcement agencies to act appropriately. The current investigatory laws available to the enforcement agencies lie within various statutes made over the last 19 years. These include the: Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000; Police Act 1997; Justice and Security Act 2013 and the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA 2014).

DRIPA 2014 was an emergency statute made as a consequence of a declaration of invalidity made by the Court of Justice of the European Union in relation to Directive 2006/ 24/EC—the Directive that governs the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks.

Some of the key elements of DRIPA seek to address the retention of certain communications data and the grounds for issuing interception warrants. With it being a temporary measure the shelf life of DRIPA 2014 expires on 31 December

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
Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Clyde & Co—Sian Langer & Gemma Parker

Firm strengthens catastrophic injury capability with partner promotions

DWF—Dean Gormley

DWF—Dean Gormley

Finance and restructuring team offering expands in Manchester with partner hire

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Taylor Rose—Vicki Maflin

Firm announces appointment of head of remortgage

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Failure to deliver in Getty v Stability AI
The long-awaited Getty Images v Stability AI judgment arrived at the end of last year—but not with the seismic impact many expected. In this week's issue of NLJ, experts from Arnold & Porter dissect a ruling that is ‘historic’ yet tightly confined
NLJ this week: Spotlight on the Supreme Court in 2025
The UK Supreme Court may be deciding fewer cases, but its impact in 2025 was anything but muted. In this week's NLJ, Professor Emeritus Brice Dickson of Queen’s University Belfast reviews a year marked by historically low output, a striking rise in jointly authored judgments, and a continued decline in dissent. High-profile rulings on biological sex under the Equality Act, public access to Dartmoor, and fairness in sexual offence trials ensured the court’s voice carried far beyond the Strand
NLJ this week: Mind the registration gap
Delays at HM Land Registry are no longer a background irritation but a growing source of professional risk. Writing in NLJ this week, Phil Murrin of DAC Beachcroft explores how the ‘registration gap’—now stretching up to two years in complex cases—is fuelling client frustration, priority disputes, and negligence claims
NLJ this week: Employment law’s fine margins
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
NLJ this week: Promises broken on non-molestation orders?
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll