The security agencies would need to consult a judge before intercepting communications, under an overhaul of spy laws suggested by the Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC.
His influential report, A question of trust, which was laid before Parliament this week, calls for reform of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000—or RIPA 2000—the UK’s core law on surveillance.
Anderson warns that “RIPA 2000, obscure since its inception, has been patched up so many times as to make it incomprehensible to all but a tiny band of initiates…This state of affairs is undemocratic, unnecessary and—in the long run intolerable.”
He supports bulk collection of data by security agencies but warns that the courts should be able to decide whether its use is proportionate. He also suggests a new requirement of judicial authorisation of all warrants for interception, the role of the secretary of state being limited to certifying that certain warrants are required in the interests of national security.
Anderson said: “Trust requires verification.
“Each intrusive power must be shown to be necessary, clearly spelled out in law, limited in accordance with international human rights standards and subject to demanding and visible safeguards. The current law is fragmented, obscure, under constant challenge and variable in the protections that it affords the innocent. It is time for a clean slate.”
Commenting on David’s report this week, Andrea Coomber, director, Justice, says: “The Home Secretary wanted an independent view on the surveillance debate and the Independent Reviewer has spoken: no new powers now; new safeguards for powers there already; and independent judicial oversight.
“We need a new law fit for the digital age, one that protects us all from disproportionately intrusive surveillance and provides appropriate judicial oversight. David Anderson agrees: it should look nothing like the last government’s ‘Snoopers’ Charter’.”
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
