This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/17/data-retention-and-surveillance-legislation-ruled-unlawful
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| High court rules data retention and surveillance legislation unlawful | High court rules data retention and surveillance legislation unlawful |
| (about 7 hours later) | |
| The high court has found that emergency surveillance legislation introduced by the coalition government last year is unlawful. | The high court has found that emergency surveillance legislation introduced by the coalition government last year is unlawful. |
| A judicial challenge by the Labour MP Tom Watson and the Conservative MP David Davis has overturned the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa) 2014. The judges ruled that data retention powers in the legislation were inconsistent with EU laws. | A judicial challenge by the Labour MP Tom Watson and the Conservative MP David Davis has overturned the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (Dripa) 2014. The judges ruled that data retention powers in the legislation were inconsistent with EU laws. |
| The government has been ordered to pass new legislation that must come into effect by the end of next March. The MPs said the judgment underlined the need for prior authorisation by a judge before police or intelligence agencies are permitted to access retained data. | |
| The Home Office, however, said it would appeal against the ruling which, it warned, may result in data that could save lives being lost to police and investigators. | |
| In their challenge, Davis and Watson argued that the law allowed the police and security services to spy on citizens without proper safeguards. | |
| They argued that the legislation was incompatible with article eight of the European convention on human rights, the right to respect for private and family life, and articles seven and eight of the EU charter of fundamental rights, respect for private and family life and protection of personal data. | They argued that the legislation was incompatible with article eight of the European convention on human rights, the right to respect for private and family life, and articles seven and eight of the EU charter of fundamental rights, respect for private and family life and protection of personal data. |
| The MPs complained that use of communications data was not limited to cases involving serious crime, that individual notices of data retention were kept secret and that no provision was made for those under obligation of professional confidentiality, in particular lawyers and journalists. Nor, they argued, were there adequate safeguards against communications data leaving the European Union. | The MPs complained that use of communications data was not limited to cases involving serious crime, that individual notices of data retention were kept secret and that no provision was made for those under obligation of professional confidentiality, in particular lawyers and journalists. Nor, they argued, were there adequate safeguards against communications data leaving the European Union. |
| Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Collins declared that section one of Dripa “does not lay down clear and precise rules providing for access to and use of communications data” and should be “disapplied”. | Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Collins declared that section one of Dripa “does not lay down clear and precise rules providing for access to and use of communications data” and should be “disapplied”. |
| But the judges said their order should be suspended until after 31 March 2016 “to give parliament the opportunity to put matters right”. | But the judges said their order should be suspended until after 31 March 2016 “to give parliament the opportunity to put matters right”. |
| Watson, a former defence minister, said after the ruling: “It’s a year to the day since Dripa received royal assent. Good governance is about allowing the legislature the room to make law. In this case it didn’t happen. Good opposition is about holding governments to account and that didn’t happen either. | Watson, a former defence minister, said after the ruling: “It’s a year to the day since Dripa received royal assent. Good governance is about allowing the legislature the room to make law. In this case it didn’t happen. Good opposition is about holding governments to account and that didn’t happen either. |
| “So we find ourselves in a position where the courts have had to say to parliament go back and start again. In his final speech in parliament on this bill last year, David Davis warned that this legislation would be junk in a year and it is.” | “So we find ourselves in a position where the courts have had to say to parliament go back and start again. In his final speech in parliament on this bill last year, David Davis warned that this legislation would be junk in a year and it is.” |
| Davis, a former Foreign Office security minister, said: “What this means is that access by the police and other agencies to everyone’s data is too easy. It can range from a politician giving permission [to intercept communications] to anyone in the next office. That’s against the law and it’s not either in the interests of privacy or security. | |
| “The government gave parliament one day to pass this legislation. This court has given the government nine months to sort it out. | “The government gave parliament one day to pass this legislation. This court has given the government nine months to sort it out. |
| “It’s the right judgment. It’s a measured judgment. It gives no risk to security because the government has plenty of time to sort it out. | “It’s the right judgment. It’s a measured judgment. It gives no risk to security because the government has plenty of time to sort it out. |
| “What this reflects is the emerging consensus in the last few weeks that prior judicial approval [of intercepting communications] is needed.” | |
| But the Home Office security minister, John Hayes, said: “We disagree absolutely with this judgment and will seek an appeal. | |
| “Communications data is not just crucial in the investigation of serious crime. It is also a fundamental part of investigating other crimes which still have a severe impact, such as stalking and harassment, as well as locating missing people, including vulnerable people who have threatened to commit suicide. | |
| “The effect of this judgment would be that in certain cases, communications data that could potentially save lives would only be available to the police and other law enforcement if a communications company had decided to retain it for commercial reasons. We believe that is wrong.” | |
| Hayes, speaking on BBC Radio 4’s The World at One, added: “I do think there is a risk here of giving succour to the paranoid liberal bourgeoisie whose peculiar fears are placed ahead of the interests of the people.” | |
| Human rights groups welcomed the ruling. James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said: “[We have] long called for fundamental reform of our surveillance laws to ensure the public’s rights are properly respected by our government – the chorus of voices demanding change is now growing. | |
| “The high court has now added its voice, ruling key provisions of Dripa unlawful. Now is the time for the home secretary to commit publicly to surveillance conducted with proper respect for privacy, democracy and the rule of law – not plough on with more of the same.” | |
| Jim Killock, director of the Open Rights Group which intervened in the case, said: “When the government forced Dripa through parliament a year ago, they denied our parliamentarians and the British public a proper debate about how our personal data is being kept by telecoms companies and accessed by the state. | |
| “As many of us pointed out at the time, this was inconsistent with the findings of the [European court of justice] that blanket data retention intruded on our right to privacy. Now that the high court has agreed that Dripa does not comply with EU law, we hope that the government will listen to these concerns. | |
| “In autumn, the government will present the investigatory powers bill to parliament. This should not be, as rumoured, an attempt by the home secretary to re-introduce the snoopers’ charter, but an opportunity to introduce an effective surveillance law that is compatible with human rights.” | |
| Rachel Logan, Amnesty UK’s legal programme director, said: “There’s no doubt that the wheels have come off the government’s unlawful and unaccountable surveillance regime. “It shouldn’t be left to concerned MPs and campaign organisations to show that it’s totally unacceptable to rush through draconian powers which allow government agents to spy on citizens without proper safeguards. “Only last week Amnesty was informed that we too have been spied on, meaning we can’t guarantee our contacts can communicate with us confidentially. Members of the public will want to know - what on earth is going on?” | |
| Carly Nyst, legal director of Privacy International, said: “Currently, under British law, access to retained data by the police and local authorities is subject to no independent review or authorisation. Police and other authorities simply self-authorise their own access to individuals’ personal information. | |
| “Some internal authorisation processes exist, but none rigorous enough to prevent the government from abusing this power, as the numbers suggest: law enforcement and intelligence agencies access communications data somewhere in the region of 500,000 times a year.” | |
| Dan Carey of the law firm Deighton Pierce Glynn, which acted for Privacy International and the Open Rights Group, said: “It is now beyond doubt that a blanket regime for accessing our personal data is unlawful, and that any access must be authorised by an independent regulator. However, we disagree with the court that requiring telecoms companies to retain all our metadata on an indiscriminate basis is potentially lawful.” |