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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll