High Court to hear first part of Liberty’s landmark challenge to mass surveillance powers in the Investigatory Powers Act

The High Court in London

The High Court in London

On Tuesday 27 February and Wednesday 28 February, the High Court is hearing the first part of Liberty’s landmark legal challenge to the Government’s flagship surveillance law that is the Investigatory Powers Act. The challenge has been funded by donations from members of the public, who gave more than £50,000.

This hearing will focus on the first part of Liberty’s case against the Act, namely its challenge to Government powers to order private companies to store everybody’s communications data and Internet history so that state agencies can access it. Liberty argues that indiscriminately retaining every person’s data in this way violates the UK public’s right to privacy.

Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, said: “There’s no doubt police and security agencies need tools to tackle serious crime in the digital age. That’s why Liberty spent years campaigning for new surveillance legislation to keep us safe, protect our rights and safeguard our personal data. Instead, we’ve been given the Investigatory Powers Act, which we feel is the most invasive surveillance regime of any democracy in the world. It introduced staggering state spying powers that give the Government access to everybody’s web histories, e-mail, text and phone records. It has made us less safe and less free, in turn undermining our privacy, the free press, free speech, protest rights, protections for journalists’ sources and whistleblowers and legal and patient confidentiality. Our message to the Government is straightforward: you’re not above the law. Stop ignoring the courts, stop knowingly violating people’s rights and build a targeted surveillance system that protects our safety, our cyber security and our rights.”

Detail of the case

The Investigatory Powers Act allows the Government to force communications companies and Internet Service Providers to store records of everybody’s e-mails, phone calls and texts, location data and entire web browsing history and hand these over to state agencies on demand.

The law also allows the state to hack computers, phones and tablets on an industrial scale, and collect the content of our digital communications and records about those communications created by our computers, phones and other devices.

This week’s hearing concerns the Government’s ability to collect communications data – which includes records of which websites we visit, location tracking information from our mobile phones and lists of who we call, text or e-mail, when and how often.

This information paints a detailed picture of a person’s movements, contacts, habits and views. It can be accessed by dozens of public bodies – from local police forces to financial regulators – with no independent authorisation and for reasons that have nothing to do with investigating terrorism or suspected serious crime.

Last month, the Court of Appeal ruled that near-identical powers in the Government’s previous surveillance law – the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act – were unlawful because they let public bodies access the nation’s Internet activity and phone records with no suspicion of serious crime and no independent sign-off. This Court of Appeal ruling applied an earlier judgement in the same case from the European Court of Justice.

The Government has already conceded that Part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act has the same flaws, but has argued that it should nonetheless be permitted to continue to apply it with no response at all from the Court.

Liberty will ask the court to order the Government to stop the future application of these parts of the Investigatory Powers Act because they allow storage of and access to this data with no independent authorisation, for crime-fighting purposes extending far beyond ‘serious crime’ and for a wide range of other non-crime purposes, including collecting taxes and fines owed and regulating financial services.

The Home Office recently launched a public consultation into potential changes to the Act to address what it now admits are illegal provisions, but the Government has not promised to make any actual changes. Liberty will demand a court order requiring the Government not to apply the Act unless these changes are made.

Liberty will also ask the High Court to immediately refer questions of European Union law to the European Court of Justice, including the question of whether the standard for retaining communications data under the Investigatory Powers Act is a general and indiscriminate privacy violation.

About the Investigatory Powers Act

The Investigatory Powers Act was intended to introduce transparency to state surveillance following Edward Snowden’s revelations of unlawful mass monitoring of the public’s communications. Instead, it simply legalised the practices that Snowden exposed and introduced hugely intrusive new powers.

Liberty states: “It passed into law in 2016 in an atmosphere of shambolic political opposition and as Parliament reeled from the EU Referendum, despite the Government failing to provide any evidence that the extreme indiscriminate powers it introduced were lawful or necessary to prevent or detect crime. A public petition calling for its repeal attracted more than 200,000 signatures, but was not debated by Parliament.”

In this case, Liberty has instructed Shamik Dutta at Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, Martin Chamberlain QC, Ben Jaffey QC and David Heaton.

About the Author
Brian Sims BA (Hons) Hon FSyI, Editor, Risk UK (Pro-Activ Publications) Beginning his career in professional journalism at The Builder Group in March 1992, Brian was appointed Editor of Security Management Today in November 2000 having spent eight years in engineering journalism across two titles: Building Services Journal and Light & Lighting. In 2005, Brian received the BSIA Chairman’s Award for Promoting The Security Industry and, a year later, the Skills for Security Special Award for an Outstanding Contribution to the Security Business Sector. In 2008, Brian was The Security Institute’s nomination for the Association of Security Consultants’ highly prestigious Imbert Prize and, in 2013, was a nominated finalist for the Institute's George van Schalkwyk Award. An Honorary Fellow of The Security Institute, Brian serves as a Judge for the BSIA’s Security Personnel of the Year Awards and the Securitas Good Customer Award. Between 2008 and 2014, Brian pioneered the use of digital media across the security sector, including webinars and Audio Shows. Brian’s actively involved in 50-plus security groups on LinkedIn and hosts the popular Risk UK Twitter site. Brian is a frequent speaker on the conference circuit. He has organised and chaired conference programmes for both IFSEC International and ASIS International and has been published in the national media. Brian was appointed Editor of Risk UK at Pro-Activ Publications in July 2014 and as Editor of The Paper (Pro-Activ Publications' dedicated business newspaper for security professionals) in September 2015. Brian was appointed Editor of Risk Xtra at Pro-Activ Publications in May 2018.

Related Posts