The Court was asked whether the actions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal were amenable to judicial review: ‘what if any material difference to the court’s approach is made by any differences in context or wording, and more particularly the inclusion, in the parenthesis to section 67(8), of a specific reference to decisions relating to ‘jurisdiction’?’
Held: The appeal was allowed (Sumption, Reed, Wilson LL dissenting). Section 67(8) does not oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for errors of law. The interpretation of section 67(8) must be informed by the close parallel with the provision under review by the House of Lords in Anisminic. The draftsman could have had no doubt that a determination vitiated by any error of law, jurisdictional or not, was to be treated as no determination at all. The reference to a determination was to be read as a reference only to a legally valid determination.
Judges:
Lady Hale, President, Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Lloyd-Jones
Citations:
[2020] AC 491, [2019] 2 WLR 1219, [2019] UKSC 22, [2019] 4 All ER 1, [2019] HRLR 13, UKSC 2018/0004
Links:
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC ’18 Dec 03 am Video, SC ’18 Dec 03 pm Video, SC ’18 Dec 04 am Video, SC ’18 Dec 04 pm Video
Statutes:
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 67(8), Human Rights Act 1998
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
At CA – Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Others CA 23-Nov-2017
The claimant sought to bring judicial review against the IPT. The IPT argued that section 67(8) of the 2000 Act prevented such a claim. . .
At IPT – Liberty (The National Council of Civil Liberties) v The Government Communications Headquarters and Others IPT 5-Dec-2014
The Claimants’ complaints alleged the unlawfulness pursuant to Article 8 (and collaterally Article 10) of the European Convention of Human Rightsof certain assumed activities of the Security Service (also, and colloquially, known as MI5), the Secret . .
At Admn – Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal Admn 2-Feb-2017
PI appealed from a ruling of the IPT that the provision which empowered the Secretary of State to authorise ‘the taking . . of such action as is specified in the warrant in respect of any property so specified’ was wide enough to encompass computer . .
Cited – Money and Others v Leach 1746
. .
Cited – Entick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
Cited – Bankovic v Belgium ECHR 12-Dec-2001
(Grand Chamber) Air strikes were carried out by NATO forces against radio and television facilities in Belgrade on 23 April 1999. The claims of five of the applicants arose out of the deaths of relatives in this raid. The sixth claimed on his own . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Al-Skeini and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2011
(Grand Chamber) The exercise of jurisdiction, which is a threshold condition, is a necessary condition for a contracting state to be able to be held responsible for acts or omissions imputable to it which give rise to an allegation of the . .
Cited – Brown (Jamaica), Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 4-Mar-2015
B, an homosexual immigrant for Jamaica, resisted his return, saying that he would be prosecuted. The Secretary of State now appealed against a finding that his inclusion of Jamaica within the statutory list of safe countries for return was not . .
Cited – Miranda v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Others Admn 19-Feb-2014
The claimant alleged that his detention by the police and the removal from him of encrypted computer storage devices purporting to use powers under the 2000 Act. He and his journalist partner had received and published materials said to be of . .
Cited – Malone v The United Kingdom ECHR 2-Aug-1984
COURT (PLENARY) The complainant asserted that his telephone conversation had been tapped on the authority of a warrant signed by the Secretary of State, but that there was no system to supervise such warrants, and that it was not therefore in . .
Cited – Belhadj and Others v Security Service and Others (Including Determination) IPT 29-Apr-2015
The court considered the methods used for collection of information by the security services, and gave the following guidance: ‘(i) Whether in fact there has been, prior to 18 November 2014, soliciting, receiving, storing and transmitting by UK . .
Cited – Kennedy v United Kingdom ECHR 18-May-2010
The claimant complained that after alleging unlawful interception of his communications, the hearing before the Investigatory Powers Tribunal was not attended by appropriate safeguards. He had been a campaigner against police abuse. His requests to . .
Cited – Weber and Saravia v Germany ECHR 29-Jun-2006
(Admissibility) ‘The first applicant is a freelance journalist who works for various German and foreign newspapers, radio and television stations on a regular basis. In particular, she investigates matters that are subject to the surveillance of the . .
Cited by:
Cited – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Judicial Review, Human Rights
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.636999