Barristers tell Parliament that some GCHQ mass surveillance is illegal

29 January 2014 by

Edward Snowden.Two barristers have advised a Parliamentary committee that some mass surveillance allegedly undertaken by the UK’s security services is probably illegal. Jemima Stratford QC and Tim Johnston’s advice (PDF) was commissioned by the chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones

You may ask why an Parliamentary group on drones is getting involved in the GCHQ surveillance debate, itself kickstarted by the revelations by Edward Snowden (pictured). The slightly tangential answer is that the committee is concerned about the legality of data being passed to the United States for use in drone strikes.

That is an important issue. But to my mind this advice raises another question, namely why it took a Parliamentary group on drones to commission a public legal advice on mass surveillance, when there is another a Parliamentary committee which should be considering the question in detail: the Intelligence and Security Committee. That committee is currently asking for submissions on data privacy , but things seem to be moving pretty slowly. I have written about serious criticisms of the ISC recently in the context of rendition and torture allegations against the Security Services.

It is to be hoped that the ISC  independent enough to do a proper job, given the importance of the Snowden allegations. If it cannot, then it may be for other committees, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to pick up the slack. The JCHR does not appear at present to be looking into the issue.

Getting back to drones, the question of what kind of data the UK’s security services may be passing on to the USA to use in drone strikes is currently before the courts, with the Court of Appeal recently refusing permission for Mr Noor Khan to appeal against a determination of the High Court from early 2013 (our post on the High Court case here). Lord Dyson said “It is only in certain established circumstances that our courts will exceptionally sit in judgment of such acts. There are no such exceptional circumstances here”. 

Meanwhile, the wider issues identified by Snowden’s revelations are being considered urgently by the European Court of Human Rights as a priority case (the case is called Big Brother Watch v United Kingdom).

Stratford and Johnston’s legal opinion is summarised in the Parliamentary Group’s blog and I will reproduce that summary below:

(i) GCHQ is not entitled to intercept ‘internal’ contents data between two British residents under the existing legislative framework of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (‘RIPA’);

(ii) GCHQ is entitled to intercept metadata and ‘external’ contents data under RIPA, although this is considered a disproportionate interference with Article 8 (privacy) rights of British citizens;

(iii) the executive has retained a largely unrestrained discretion to permit transfer of UK data to the NSA under RIPA;

(iv) RIPA does not place any restriction on the uses to which intercept material might be put, other than its admissibility in court;

(v) a new UK-US bilateral arrangement governing the transfer, storage and use of UK data is the minimum required to protect British citizens and ensure British data and facilities are not used to support activities which would be unlawful in the UK, including drone strikes against non combatants;

(vi) the government is obliged to investigate and prevent UK agents, visiting forces and visiting agents becoming ‘accidental’ accessories to murder under domestic law, where those responsible know that relevant data or facilities may be used to support US drone strikes, properly regarded as unlawful in the UK;

(vii) RIPA has been overtaken by developments in technology since 2000. The key distinction between ‘contents’ and ‘communications’ data is no longer meaningful, given modern internet usage.

Keen readers may also note there is may be a political dimension to the timing of this advice. As the Drones Group blog points out, the “Advice also lends real weight to amendments proposed to the Defence Reform Bill, Visiting Forces Act and RIPA tabled by four peers from the All Parliamentary Group on Drones which will be moved next week on 3rd February in the Grand Chamber”. 

Interesting times…

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts:

8 comments


  1. Phil Glover says:

    In my view, RIPA 2000 S8(4)-8(6), provides the legal authority for GCHQ to undertake mass surveillance and virtually mirrors the old authority under the IOCA 1985 s3(2). The basis in law is there, but the proportionality of what goes on is not.(See Liberty & others v UK). There remains an unfettered executive discretion whereby with a Ministerial certificate (s8(5)) and the limitation of conduct to that authorised in RIPA, s5(6), there is a basis in law for GCHQ to use “all such conduct as may be described in the interception warrant to [seek whatever intercept content and related communications data] as is described in the warrant.” The Cabinet Secretary is required by s5(2) and 5(3) to consider the necessity and proportionality of ALL warrants he issues (including certificated warrants). It is on proportionality that the current Privacy not PRISM complaint before the ECtHR is likely to succeed (as it did in Liberty). Thre has been no response to date by the UK to Liberty’s findings.
    An interception is only an interception if it is effected by conduct in the UK (RIPA 2000, s2(2) and 2(4). RIPA 2000 requires a closed list (s6(2) of UK intelligence-gathering bodies to apply for an interception warrant for ANY interception. There are no exceptions. GCHQ’s mass-surveillance activities are all backed by Ministerially-certifiicated s8(4) warrants, giving them legal authority. As in Liberty, The ECTHR is unlikely to accept the Govt position on proportionality or on current jurisprudence as to whether it is conducted “in accordance with law.”
    Any conduct by GCHQ will always have been effected in the UK, as their warrant application seeking authorisation for their proposed activity will be made in the UK. RIPA 2000, s5(1) also permits disclosure of intercepted material without limitation upon the jurisdiction of who may actually see it. The Ministerial certificate (S8(5) will limit the recipients and ss 15 and 16 can only cover intercepted material that has been obtained as a result of interceptions effected in the UK. Similarly, s3(1) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, whilst not limiting GCHQ’s monitoring and interfering brief territorially, limits the obtaining and provision of reports based on their activities to obtianing and providing reports on monitoring and interference undertaken by them. (see the “such emissions” drafting in s3(1)(a).) To this end, the separate issue of acquiring intercepted material obtained extra-jurisdictionally (e.g. by the NSA) or indeed any foreign intelligence reports, seems to be precluded by the drafting of both the ISA 1994 and RIPA 2000, both of which as drafted seem only to envisage, authorise and regulate the dissemination of UK intercepted material (in order presumably to give effect to the UK’s perceived reciprocal obligations under the highly secret UKUSA Agreement).
    The morality and ethics of mass surveillance are separate issues from legality. The drafting of ISA 1994 and RIPA 2000 mean that acquisition of extra-jurisdictionally obtained intercepted material is almost certainly not “in accordance with law ” Mass interception of UK residents’ external communications under certificated warrants may have an opaque basis in law, but as currently drafted, RIPA 2000 fails to encompass key ECtHR requirements as to proportionality, clarity and foreseeability. It is likely that the Privacy not PRISM complaint will succeed on at least one of the 2 counts. This may explain the historic decision by the ISC to consult publicly.

  2. I think the barristers have put the cart before the horse. Does the government have lawful authority to undertake the surveillance? The advice did not explore this question and is potentially flawed as a result.

    The advice only asks if the surveillance meets RIPA. RIPA only refers to lawful surveillance.
    (1)It shall be an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority.

    What has not been analyzed or suggested is that the surveillance is unlawful or lacking lawful authority. The barristers did not explore this question, which is different from and precedes RIPA. RIPA only comes into question if there is a belief that the lawful authority was either not lawful or its application was excessive. Consider the intelligence services act 1994 that provides lawful authority for such interceptions. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/13/crossheading/authorisation-of-certain-actions

    RIPA does *not* give them lawful authority. Instead, RIPA makes sure they are complying with lawful authority. In this case, they appear to be complying with that lawful authority as suggested by intelligence and security committee of parliament, which is a parliamentary committee unlike the All Party Parliament Group. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225459/ISC-Statement-on-GCHQ.pdf

    In this case, the question to ask is what is the lawful authority for the surveillance, but that is not asked or explored. It is assumed (always dangerous in a legal analysis) that the surveillance is unlawful. We may dislike it, but that does not make it unlawful. So, was there a lawful authority directing the surveillance? We do not know from this analysis but that is the key question. Is there a Warrant or other authorization from HMG? It would appear there is from Intelligence and Security Committee investigation. Did they do it to support a lawful activity? Yes, protect national security. Is defense of national security unlawful? No. Can the manner in which national security be defended be unlawful? Yes. Has that been proven. No.

    The barrister’s advice shows they do not like surveillance but it has not shown it is unlawful. Therefore, they cannot say that it is not compliant with RIPA because they have not answered the first or fundamental question: is it lawful? If it is lawful, RIPA cannot prove it unlawful.

  3. Mark says:

    You’d like to think they’d taken legal advice beforehand: was any opinion sought? If so, who from?

    1. alrich says:

      They were relying on a literal reading of RIPA – which is not how it works when interpreting EU directives.

  4. alrich says:

    Jemima Stratford crucially also suggests that GCHQ is wrong to assert it has a getout – that material for mass surveillance was collected offshore from transatlantic cables and hence not covered by RIPA. She says: ‘In that case, the security services might contend that the interception is “effected by conduct” outside the UK (the words used at the start of section 8(4) of RIPA) and thereby seek to evade the limitations of RIPA. We seriously doubt whether a court would accept that argument, not least because there would still be conduct connected with the interception in the UK.’

    I have noted that the Court of Appeal has clarified this issue recently, re phone hacking but the same principle applies: “no matter where in the process a phone message is captured, it will have been intercepted somewhere in the transmission system and hence potentially unlawfully”. ie contrary to RIPA.
    http://thinkinglegally.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/edmondson-et-al-news-international-hacking-judgment-gchq-scandal/

    The putative GCHQ argument is that RIPA is said to cover such surveillance only when “the interception is effected by conduct within the United Kingdom” ie claiming the cables are beyond UK borders or its surveillance is done on US servers. The hacking judgment is evidence for Stratford’s point: that a court would not see it this way. I suggested that “effected” would have to be interpreted in the light of the purpose of RIPA – to implement Art 5 of Directive 2002/58/EC which said member states must: “prohibit listening, tapping, storage or other kinds of interception or surveillance of communications etc”.

    RIPA must be interpreted on that basis ie it can’t fail to prohibit those things if it can be construed by any means as probibiting them. The words “effected by conduct” will be interpreted as “bring about” or “make something occur”, so, as I put it: “Even if the British authorities brought it about by asking the US authorities to do it for them, or even if they did it by attaching their bugging devices to cables offshore, it can be argued that GCHQ “effected” the interception from the UK.” That is the interpretation that should prevail to implement the directive. Hence the mass storage is illegal.

  5. KF says:

    All-Party Parliamentary Groups are not parliamentary committees. APPGs are informal cross-party groups with no official status within Parliament (http://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/apg/). The Guide to the Rules on APPGs explains that: “They should not be confused with select committees, which are formal institutions of the House”. APPGs do not have the same powers as formal parliamentary committees to summon witnesses or to expect a government response to any recommendations they make.

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Thanks for clarifying this – I have amended the post

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: