header-logo header-logo

Liberty wins mass surveillance victory

30 April 2018
Issue: 7791 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Data protection
printer mail-detail

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.’

Issue: 7791 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights , Data protection
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—19 appointments

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
Artificial intelligence may be revolutionising the law, but its misuse could wreck cases and careers, warns Clare Arthurs of Penningtons Manches Cooper in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll