header-logo header-logo

02 February 2018
Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-detail

DRIPA surveillance ruled unlawful

A controversial law on state surveillance has been ruled unlawful by the Court of Appeal

The government failed to win its appeal against Tom Watson MP’s challenge to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) this week, in Home Secretary v Watson [2018] EWCA Civ 70. The court held that the Act breached EU law on data protection since it allowed access to individuals’ phone and internet data for purposes beyond that of fighting serious crime, and let police and public bodies authorise their own access rather than submitting requests to a court or independent body.

DRIPA expired at the end of 2016, but the powers were largely replicated in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, also known as the ‘Snooper’s Charter’. 

Civil rights organisation Liberty, which represented Watson in the case, is bringing a separate challenge to the Investigatory Powers Act later this year in the High Court.

Martha Spurrier, Liberty’s director, said: ‘Yet again a UK court has ruled the government’s extreme mass surveillance regime unlawful.

‘This judgment tells ministers in crystal clear terms that they are breaching the public’s human rights. The latest incarnation of the Snoopers’ Charter, the Investigatory Powers Act, must be changed.’

The case was referred to the European Court of Justice, which in 2016 issued a ruling backing the High Court’s decision that the Act contained inadequate protection for individual rights.

Home Office Security and Economic Crime Minister Ben Wallace said: ‘This judgment relates to legislation which is no longer in force and, crucially, [this] judgment does not change the way in which law enforcement agencies can detect and disrupt crimes.

We had already announced that we would be amending the Investigatory Powers Act to address the two areas in which the Court of Appeal has found against the previous data retention regime. We welcome the fact that the Court of Appeal ruling does not undermine the regime and we will continue to defend these vital powers, which Parliament agreed were necessary in 2016, in ongoing litigation.’

Categories: Legal News , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
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?
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
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
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll