Civil rights campaign group Liberty has won its case against the government’s controversial surveillance law, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
In the first of a number of challenges it is bringing against the Act, Liberty argued that Part 4 of the Act breached the public’s right to privacy by giving the government powers to order private companies to store people’s communications data, including internet history, location tracking and contacts, so state agencies can access it.
Liberty said dozens of public bodies, from local police to financial regulators, can access this information with no independent authorisation and for reasons that have nothing to do with investigating terrorism or serious crime.
The High Court ruled Part 4 unlawful on the basis it was incompatible with both EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights, in R (on the application of Liberty) v Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary [2018] EWHC 975 (Admin).
Delivering judgment along with Mr Justice Holgate, Lord Justice Singh said Part 4 was incompatible with fundamental rights in EU law because ‘access to retained data is not limited to the purpose of combating “serious crime”’ and ‘access to retained data is not subject to prior review by a court or an independent administrative body’.
They gave the government until 1 November 2018 to amend Part 4.
Shamik Dutta, solicitor at Bhatt Murphy, who represented Liberty, said: ‘This ruling strikes another blow against the unlawful and unnecessary surveillance.’
Martha Spurrier, Director of Liberty, said: ‘Police and security agencies need tools to tackle serious crime in the digital age—but creating the most intrusive surveillance regime of any democracy in the world is unlawful, unnecessary and ineffective.
‘Spying on everyone’s internet histories and email, text and phone records with no suspicion of serious criminal activity and no basic protections for our rights undermines everything that’s central to our democracy and freedom—our privacy, free press, free speech, protest rights, protections for journalists’ sources and whistleblowers, and legal and patient confidentiality. It also puts our most sensitive personal information at huge risk from criminal hackers and foreign spies.’
