The Round Up – ‘Snooper’s Charter’ set to become law

1 December 2016 by

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is set to become law in the United Kingdom following its passing of the third stage of legislative scrutiny earlier this month. The Act seeks to consolidate and amend the legislative framework which governs the use of investigatory powers, including the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). It is expected to receive royal assent by the end of 2016.

The draft Bill, nicknamed the ‘Snooper’s Charter’ by its detractors, was waved through the House of Commons in June this year with 444 votes to 69, fielding support amongst both Conservative and Labour MPs. The Scottish National Party (SNP) voted against it.

The passing of the Act comes one month after the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the judicial body responsible for hearing complaints against MI5, MI6, and GCHQ, found that British security agencies had unlawfully collected confidential personal data for a number of years.

The Act provides for a combination of increased surveillance powers and a number of safeguards, setting out for the first time the powers available to the police and security services. Internet Connection Records (ICRs) will be retained by communications service providers in order to identify the sender of the communication, which services (for example a social media site) a person is using, or whether a person has been accessing or making available illegal material online. It does not provide a full internet browsing history. A service provider can be required to retain this data for up to 12 months.

The measures under scrutiny

The draft Investigatory Powers Bill was subject to scrutiny from three independent Committees: the Joint Committee on Human Rights; the Intelligence and Security Committee; and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.

In June this year, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report outlining pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill. It explained that a number of rights are engaged. These include the right to respect for private life, family life, home and correspondence in article 8 ECHR; the right to privacy in article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the right to privacy under article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which applies within the scope of the application of EU law.

The Government had previously argued that the Bill would increase compliance with human rights law standards, thanks to the provision of ‘independent oversight’, the establishment of a ‘clear legal basis for the use of investigatory powers by law enforcement’, and the provision of ‘new legal remedies by (the introduction of) a right of appeal from decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal’.

Following an extensive review, the Committee made a number of observations and recommendations. It found that the ‘bulk powers’ in the Bill were not inherently incompatible with the right to respect for private life, but were capable of being justified if they have “a sufficiently clear legal basis, are shown to be necessary, and are proportionate in that they are accompanied by adequate safeguards against arbitrariness.”

The Committee also recommended that the role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation be bolstered. On the ‘thematic warrants’, it recommended that the subject-matter of the warrants be circumscribed according to the Reviewer’s recommendation, in order to ‘prevent the possibility of large numbers of people being potentially within the scope of a vaguely worded warrant.’

In March this year the Government responded to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, in which then-Home Secretary Theresa May said that the revised Bill gave effect to the “vast majority of the recommendations made” by the three committees.

The wrong approach to human rights?

The Act has been criticised by a number of individuals and organisations including the chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC. Ms Doerries QC has argued that the Act risks compromising the privacy of communications between lawyers and their clients. These communications are protected by ‘legal professional privilege’. According to the President of the Law Society, the representative body for solicitors in England and Wales, it is “fundamental to our justice system.” The Law Society states that this privilege “recognises the client’s fundamental human right to be candid with his legal adviser, without fear of later disclosure to his prejudice.”

Human Rights group Liberty has also criticised the Act, arguing that it “makes us all less safe, and less free.” It raised particular concerns that a citizen does not need to be reasonably suspected of wrongdoing to fall within the remit of the data retention powers. It also drew attention to the variety of government departments who will have access to personal information.

Jim Killock, Director of the Open Rights Group, raised concerns regarding the sharing of intelligence between GCHQ and the American National Security Agency, describing the data sharing as “near-complete”.

A petition for the repeal of the Act has now amassed more than 100,000 signatures, and therefore must be considered for parliamentary debate. Liberty have promised to “see the government in Court.” It seems that the saga is set to continue.

In the news

The UK Government has published a paper in which it responds to human rights judgments involving the country. The paper focuses on two types of human rights judgments: those from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg against the UK and under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); and cases in which UK courts have declared that a measure is incompatible with human rights law under section 4 of the Human Rights Act (1998). The report, which runs to 70 pages, is available here.

The BBC reports that the rights of a transgender man who was born female were beached by the recording of his previous gender on his marriage certificate. The Northern Ireland resident had previously entered into a civil partnership with his partner, in which he was recorded as a woman. He was subsequently granted a gender recognition certificate which gave him legal status as a man. The later marriage with his partner required the annulment of the civil partnership. The marriage certificate recorded the details of that partnership, including his former gender. He successfully argued against the Department of Finance and Personnel that the disclosure of the dissolution of the civil partnership constituted a breach of his rights to privacy under article 8 ECHR. The department’s contention that there was no deliberate publication of his gender history did not prevent the judge finding that the interference with his article 8 rights was without justification.

In the Courts

O’Neill and Lauchlan v The United Kingdom: The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights is considering whether to consider a referral in a case brought by two British nationals. In August 1998 Charles O’Neill and William Lauchlan were convicted of sexual offences and sentenced to eight and six years in prison respectively. They were questioned in September 1998 whilst serving their sentence over the murder of a woman, A.M., of which charges were brought against both men in April 2005. The men were indicted for trial in September 2008.  Both men were eventually convicted in 2010. Mr O’Neill and Mr Lauchlan appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on the basis that the delay in and length of criminal proceedings had been excessive, and constituted a breach of their right to a fair trial within a reasonable time under article 6 of the ECHR.  The original decision of June 2016 is considered by Fraser Simpson in this blog here.

by Thomas Beamont

7 comments


  1. Dan Smith says:

    It’s not a bad idea…Facebook and Twitter et al are good fun for teenagers until they go to far and getting professional. Larger companies have private sites so they are regulated by the bosses. Hopefully this act will stop Barry from Braunstone setting up a terror network.

  2. Violet says:

    In my opinion it is against every right and liberty! Expecting a big change!

  3. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  4. sdbast says:

    Reblogged this on sdbast.

  5. Paul Anderson says:

    Hi,

     

    Many thanks for the pertinent post.

     

    Apologies for the shameless plug but thought I'd mention the following paper on resistance to mass surveillance in the UK in case it might be of vague interest to you and colleagues: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2776155

     

    With kind regards,

     

    Dr Paul Anderson

     

    Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 at 11:08 AM

  6. helenjnoble says:

    Reblogged this on helenjnoble.

  7. truthaholics says:

    Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    “The wrong approach to human rights?

    The Act has been criticised by a number of individuals and organisations including the chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC. Ms Doerries QC has argued that the Act risks compromising the privacy of communications between lawyers and their clients. These communications are protected by ‘legal professional privilege’. According to the President of the Law Society, the representative body for solicitors in England and Wales, it is “fundamental to our justice system.” The Law Society states that this privilege “recognises the client’s fundamental human right to be candid with his legal adviser, without fear of later disclosure to his prejudice.”

    Human Rights group Liberty has also criticised the Act, arguing that it “makes us all less safe, and less free.” It raised particular concerns that a citizen does not need to be reasonably suspected of wrongdoing to fall within the remit of the data retention powers. It also drew attention to the variety of government departments who will have access to personal information.

    Jim Killock, Director of the Open Rights Group, raised concerns regarding the sharing of intelligence between GCHQ and the American National Security Agency, describing the data sharing as “near-complete”.

    A petition for the repeal of the Act has now amassed more than 100,000 signatures, and therefore must be considered for parliamentary debate. Liberty have promised to “see the government in Court.” It seems that the saga is set to continue.”

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: