header-logo header-logo

04 November 2016
Issue: 7721 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights

Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others [2016] UKIPTrib 15_110-CH, [2016] All ER (D) 147 (Oct)

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that it was lawful, as a matter of domestic law, for a secretary of state to issue directions to telecommunications and internet service providers to supply communications data to MI5 and to GCHQ, and for them to store and examine it. However, in the present case, the regimes for the acquisition, use and deletion by the respondent security services of bulk personal datasets and to allow directions to the public electronic communications networks to transfer bulk communications data to GCHQ and MI5 had not complied with Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights prior to avowals made in November and March 2015.

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

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

Ward Hadaway—19 promotions

19 promotions across national offices, including two new partners

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Brabners—Ruth Hargreaves

Partner promoted to head of corporate team

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Slater Heelis—Liam Hall, Jordan Bear & Joe Madigan

Chester office expansion accelerates with triple appointment

NEWS
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has reignited debate over what exactly counts as the ‘conduct of litigation’ in modern legal practice
A controversial High Court financial remedies ruling has reignited debate over secrecy, non-disclosure and fairness in divorce proceedings involving hidden wealth
Britain’s deferred prosecution agreement regime is undergoing a significant shift, with prosecutors placing renewed emphasis on corporate cooperation, reform and early self-reporting
The High Court has upheld the Metropolitan Police’s live facial recognition policy, rejecting claims that its deployment unlawfully interferes with privacy and protest rights
As AI chatbots increasingly provide legal and commercial advice, English law is beginning to confront who should bear responsibility when automated systems get things wrong
back-to-top-scroll