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’?’ … Continue reading Privacy International, Regina (on The Application of) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others: SC 15 May 2019
T and JB, asserted that the reference in certificates issued by the state to cautions given to them violated their right to respect for their private life under article 8 of the Convention. T further claims that the obligation cast upon him to disclose the warnings given to him violated the same right. Held: The … Continue reading T and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department and Another: SC 18 Jun 2014
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 . .
The appellant challenged by review the use of closed material first in the issue of a search warrant, and subsequently to justify the retention of materials removed during the search.
Held: The appeal failed. No express statutory justification . .
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. . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval. Held: The Orders must be set aside. ‘It is I think obvious that this procedure does not begin to … Continue reading A, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury: Admn 24 Apr 2008
The defendants sought leave to appeal against convictions for conspiracy to supply drugs. The prosecutor relied on surveillance evidence showing meetings and telephone calls between the defendants; evidence from recording devices in defendants’ cars; evidence of money transfers, and he placed reliance on telephone intercept material. This material was in the form of recordings of … Continue reading Regina v Austin and others: CACD 16 May 2008
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 undertakings from the journalists not to publish any element of the interview. … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms: HL 8 Jul 1999
The claimant a retired senior officer in the intelligence services wished to publish a book of his memoirs. He was refused permission for his duty of confidentiality, and said that this infringed his human rights. The Director denied his right to take the case before the court saying that it was to be heard by … Continue reading A v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service: Admn 4 Jul 2008
The appellant said that the police officers had acted unlawfully when collecting the evidence used against him, in that the information used to support the request for permission to undertake clandestine surveillance had been insufficiently detailed, and that the police had acted in breach of his article 8 rights in obtaining evidence by surveillance since … Continue reading Kinloch v Her Majesty’s Advocate: SC 19 Dec 2012
B, a former senior member of the security services wished to publish his memoirs. He was under contractual and statutory obligations of confidentiality. He sought judicial review of a decision not to allow him to publish parts of the book, saying it was vitiated by bias, and in breach of his right to freedom of … Continue reading A, Regina (on The Application of) v B; Regina (A) v Director of Establishments of the Security Service: SC 9 Dec 2009
Complaint was made that the prisoner’s privileged conversations with his solicitors had been intercepted by the police. Held: The Act made explicit provisions allowing such interception and set out the appropriate safeguards. The interceptions were lawful. It was significant that a code of practice had been issued making detailed provision for the authorisation of monitoring … Continue reading McE, Re; McE v Prison Service of Northern Ireland and Another: HL 11 Mar 2009
The Secretary of State appealed against a ruling that section 1 of the 2014 Act was inconsistent wih European law. Held: The following questions were referred to the CJEU: (1) Did the CJEU in Digital Rights Ireland intend to lay down mandatory requirements of EU law with which the national legislation of Member States must … Continue reading Secretary of State for The Home Department v Davis MP and Others: CA 20 Nov 2015
The claimant pursued Employment Tribunal proceedings against the Immigration Service when his security clearance was withdrawn. The Tribunal allowed the respondent to use a closed material procedure under which it was provided with evidence unseen . .
The Attorney General sought the correct interpretation of section 17 where a court was asked as to whether evidence obtained from a telephone tapping had been taken from a public or private network. A chief constable suspected that the defendants, . .
Three serving police officers provided confidential information to a known criminal. The Chief Constable authorised interception of telephones at a police station, a private network. The court accepted that section 17 prevented the defence asserting . .
The appellant Harmes ran a public house and was suspected of involvement in the distribution of Class A drugs and money laundering. An undercover police operation was launched and approved which lasted approximately 3 months. One of the undercover . .
The claimants had been prosecuted following authorised intrusive surveillance. They challenged the laws which prevented them from asking questions about interception, and therefore from defending themselves. The defendants said that the police had . .
The claimant sought to allege race discrimination and appealed refusal by the respondents to release required documents. She had been turned down for an appointment to the Trident task force, and sought disclosure of the reasons. The respondent said . .
Police working undercover were asked to use mobile telephones. They recorded their conversations. At trial the defendants asked for the details of the authorisation for the interception of the communications, but were given only part information . .
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 . .