header-logo header-logo

12 February 2016 / Rebecca Dix
Issue: 7686 / Categories: Features , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Beyond reach?

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll