header-logo header-logo

03 February 2017 / Nicholas Griffin KC
Issue: 7732 / Categories: Features , Data protection
printer mail-detail

​Privacy v security

nlj_7732_griffin

Nicholas Griffin QC considers the CJEU Watson decision on UK surveillance law

 
  • A recent CJEU decision addresses an important aspect of UK surveillance law and finds it wanting.
  • It raises questions about the current UK regime governing the retention of and access to data about our communications.
  • The government says its approach is a necessary part of the fight against crime and terrorism. However, the view of privacy campaigners—that the law goes too far—found support at the CJEU.

The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) delivered a judgment just before Christmas that is full of significance for the government’s approach to surveillance and the fight against crime and terrorism. It did so in the Watson case (in fact joined cases Tele2 Sverige AB v Post-och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and others , C203/15 and C698/1 of 21 December 2016). The decision is a major victory for privacy campaigners such as MPs Tom Watson and David Davis, who were behind the case from its inception.

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

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

DWF—11 appointments

DWF—11 appointments

DWF strengthens North West teams with 11 newly qualified solicitors

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll