header-logo header-logo

04 November 2016
Issue: 7721 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Human rights

Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and others [2016] UKIPTrib 15_110-CH, [2016] All ER (D) 147 (Oct)

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that it was lawful, as a matter of domestic law, for a secretary of state to issue directions to telecommunications and internet service providers to supply communications data to MI5 and to GCHQ, and for them to store and examine it. However, in the present case, the regimes for the acquisition, use and deletion by the respondent security services of bulk personal datasets and to allow directions to the public electronic communications networks to transfer bulk communications data to GCHQ and MI5 had not complied with Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights prior to avowals made in November and March 2015.

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll