header-logo header-logo

23 October 2015
Issue: 7673 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Parliament

Caroline Lucas MP and others v Security Service and others [2015] UKIPTrib 14_79-CH, [2015] All ER (D) 104 (Oct)

The present judgment concerned the hearing of preliminary issues relating to the status, meaning and effect of the Wilson Doctrine, to the effect that there was to be no tapping of the telephones of Members of Parliament. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal gave guidance on its application with respect to s 8(1) and (4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and held that the doctrine was not legally enforceable and that the regime for interception complied with the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys—Maggie Kwok & George Weston

Harneys senior leadership appointments

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths—Keith Browne & Jim Jordan

Freeths strengthens London Construction and Engineering practice with two strategic senior hires

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins—Laura Moss

Anthony Collins announces strategic hire to deepen skills base in the social business sector

NEWS
More than 100 teams from the legal and financial services sectors competed in five sports at the 51st Law Society RFC Festival of Sport earlier this month
Part-time status need only be an effective cause of less favourable treatment, rather than the sole cause, the Supreme Court has held in Augustine v Data Cars
Britain’s new acknowledgement that Israel’s occupation is unlawful, and accompanying settlement-goods ban and sanctions, is significant but overdue, argue Danny Friedman KC and Victor Kattan in NLJ this week
New planning fee rises, wider trade union access rights and a service-by-email trap feature in Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way
Existing defamation law can respond to AI ‘hallucinations’, but allocating responsibility will prove harder where outputs reach users without human intervention
back-to-top-scroll