header-logo header-logo

DRIPA surveillance ruled unlawful

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

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Home Office Security and Economic Crime Minister Ben Wallace said: ‘This judgment relates to legislation which is no longer in force and, crucially, [this] judgment does not change the way in which law enforcement agencies can detect and disrupt crimes.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

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

Morae—Carla Mendy

Morae—Carla Mendy

Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

NEWS
The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
back-to-top-scroll