R Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another (Interested Parties)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Brian Leveson P,Leggatt J |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 2017 |
| Neutral Citation | [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/2368/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 02 February 2017 |
[2017] EWHC 114 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
( Sir Brian Leveson)
Mr Justice Leggatt
Case No: CO/2368/2016
and
Ben Jaffey and Tom Cleaver (instructed by Bhatt Murphy, London) for the Claimant
Jonathan Glasson Q.C. (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Defendant
James Eadie Q.C. and Kate Grange (instructed by the Government Legal Department) for the Interested Parties
Hearing date: 2 November 2016
Approved Judgment
On 12 February 2016, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal ("IPT") ruled against an application brought by Privacy International relating to the proper construction of section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 ("the 1994 Act"). It held that the provision which empowered the Secretary of State to authorise "the taking … of such action as is specified in the warrant in respect of any property so specified" was wide enough to encompass computer and network exploitation or, in colloquial language, hacking of computers including mobile devices on a thematic basis, i.e. in respect of a class of property or people or a class of such acts.
Privacy International wishes to judicially review that ruling but has been met with section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (" RIPA") and the contention that this clause is an ouster providing that no right of appeal or challenge lies from a decision of the IPT. Thus, these proceedings have been brought to establish, first, that section 67(8) of RIPA does not prevent judicial review of a decision of the IPT when it errs in law and, second, that the proper construction of section 5 of the 1994 Act does not permit such computer and network exploitation.
On 17 June 2016, Lang J granted permission to apply for judicial review, observing that she had "real doubt" whether the court had jurisdiction to determine the substantive claim. As a result, she ordered a preliminary issue to be tried of the issue whether the decision of the IPT was amenable to judicial review. She also made a protective costs order.
On the hearing of the preliminary issue, we have been assisted by Ben Jaffey and Tom Cleaver for Privacy International and by James Eadie Q.C. and Kate Grange for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Government Communications Headquarters as the relevant institutions of government named as Interested Parties. Jonathan Glasson Q.C. for the IPT has provided a note to assist the court in relation to the history and statutory functions of the IPT along with the manner in which it fulfils those functions but he did not argue the merits of the ouster issue.
The Structure and Functions of the IPT
It is no accident that RIPA (establishing the IPT) came into force at the same time as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Civil Procedure Rules (described as "a single legislative scheme": see A v Director of the Security Service ('A v B') [2010] 2 AC 1 [2009] EWCA Civ 24 and [2009] UKSC 12 per Laws LJ (at [14]) and Dyson LJ (at [48]) in the Court of Appeal echoed by Lord Brown in the Supreme Court at [21]). The Explanatory Notes to RIPA identified that the main purpose of the Act was to ensure that investigatory powers (including, for example, the interception of communications and the carrying out of surveillance) were "used in accordance with human rights".
The IPT effectively replaced the Interception of Communications Act Tribunal, the Security Services Act Tribunal and the Intelligence Services Act Tribunal which now exist only in relation to complaints made before 2 October 2000. These tribunals (established by the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the Security Services Act 1989 and the 1994 Act respectively) were repealed by RIPA and contained almost identical ouster provisions. Thus, section 7(8) of the 1985 Act provides:
"The decisions of the Tribunal (including any decisions as to their jurisdiction) shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court."
Similarly, section 5(4) of the 1989 Act and section 9(4) of the 1994 Act provide:
"The decisions of the Tribunal and the Commissioner under that Schedule (including decisions as to their jurisdictions) shall not be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court."
The IPT also replaced the complaints provision of Part III of the Police Act 1997 (concerning police interference with property). It stands apart from other tribunals and is not part of Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service on the basis that (according to Sir Andrew Leggatt in his Report of the Review of Tribunals at para 3.11) "it is wholly unsuitable both for inclusion in the Tribunals System and for administration by the Tribunals Service". Sir Andrew went on:
"The Tribunal's powers are primarily investigatory, even though it does also have an adjudicative role. Parliament has provided that there should be no appeal from the tribunal except as provided by the Secretary of State."
The membership of the IPT is made up of the President, the Vice President, three other judges (all five of whom are judges of the High Court) and other distinguished lawyers including representatives from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Its remit is established by section 65 of RIPA (as amended) in these terms:
"(1) There shall, for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction conferred on them by this section, be a tribunal consisting of such number of members as Her Majesty may by Letters Patent appoint.
(2) The jurisdiction of the tribunal shall be—
(a) to be the only appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to any proceedings under subsection (1)(a) of that section (proceedings for actions incompatible with Convention rights) which fall within subsection (3) of this section;
(b) to consider and determine any complaints made to them which, in accordance with subsection (4), are complaints for which the tribunal is the appropriate forum;
(c) to consider and determine any reference to them by any person that he has suffered detriment as a consequence of any prohibition or restriction, by virtue of section 17, on his relying in, or for the purposes of, any civil proceedings on any matter; and
(d) to hear and determine any other such proceedings falling within subsection (3) as may be allocated to them in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.
(3) Proceedings fall within this subsection if—
(a) they are proceedings against any of the intelligence services …
(b) they are proceedings against any other person in respect of any conduct, proposed conduct, by or on behalf of any of those services;
(c) they are proceedings brought by virtue of section 55(4); or
(d) they are proceedings relating to the taking place in any challengeable circumstances of any conduct falling within subsection (5).
(4) The tribunal is the appropriate forum for any complaint if it is a complaint by a person who is aggrieved by any conduct falling within subsection (5) which he believes—
(a) to have taken place in relation to him, to any of his property, to any communications sent by or to him, or intended for him, or to his use of any postal service, telecommunications service or telecommunication system; and
(b) to have taken place in challengeable circumstances or to have been carried out by or on behalf of any of the intelligence services.
(5) Subject to subsection (6), conduct falls within this subsection if (whenever it occurred) it is–
(a) conduct by or on behalf of any of the intelligence services;
(b) conduct for or in connection with the interception of communications in the course of their transmission by means of a postal service or telecommunication system;
(c) conduct to which Chapter II of Part I applies;
(ca) the carrying out of surveillance by a foreign police or customs officer (within the meaning of section 76A);
(d) other conduct to which Part II applies;
(e) the giving of a notice under section 49 or any disclosure or use of a key to protected information;
(f) any entry on or interference with property or any interference with wireless telegraphy.
(6) For the purposes only of subsection (3), nothing mentioned in paragraph (d) or (f) of subsection (5) shall be treated as falling within that subsection unless it is conduct by or on behalf of a person holding any office, rank or position with–
(a) any of the intelligence services;
(b) any of Her Majesty's forces;
(c) any police force;
(ca) the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner;
(d) the National Crime Agency;
(f) the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs;
and section 48(5) applies for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of Part II.
(7) For the purposes of this section conduct takes place in challengeable circumstances if–
(a) it takes place with the authority, or purported authority, of anything falling within subsection (8); or
(b) the circumstances are such that (whether or not there is such authority) it would not have been appropriate for the conduct to take place without it, or at least without proper consideration having been given to whether such authority should be sought;
but, subject to subsection (7ZA), conduct does not take place in challengeable circumstances to the extent that it is authorised by, or takes place with the permission of, a judicial authority.
(7ZA) The exception in subsection (7) so far as conduct is authorised by, or takes place with the permission of,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Privacy International v Investigatory Powers Tribunal
...of Appeal had held that this wording precluded a claim for judicial review, which was “the aim that Parliament clearly intended” [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin) at [44]. The claim was stayed pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. On 15 May 2019 the Supreme Court allowed an appeal from the Court o......
-
R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others
...IPT are complex. There is a comprehensive account in the judgment of Sir Brian Leveson P in the Divisional Court (paras 5 to 15) ( [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin)). For present purposes it is enough to note the principal features. Section 65(1) and Schedule 3 deal with its composition. The number ......
-
Mandy Richards v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and Others
...has excluded even that remedy — see Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ('the 2000 Act') s.67(8) and R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin). A limited right of appeal from the IPT will be introduced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 s. 2......
-
Revisiting the Precedential Status of Crown Court Decisions
...that was satisfied of its error (see also thefirst instance judgment in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin); [2017] 3 AllER 1127, [48]–[49]; BJ Ong, ‘The Ouster of Parliamentary Sovereignty?’ [2020] PL 41, 47. Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019......
-
Private law rights in the digital age: the role of the court?
...of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2016] UKIP Trib 14_85-CH 10R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin) [2018] Irish Judicial Studies Journal Vol 2(1) 104 IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL by the English Court of Appeal case of Vidal Hall v G......
-
Les droits privés dans l'age numérique: le rôle des tribunaux?
...devait empêcher la disposition nationale d'avoir un effet contraire. 10R (Privacy International) c Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin) 11[2016] QB 1003 12Directive 95/46/EC du 24 octobre 1995 [2018] Irish Judicial Studies Journal Vol 2(2) 114 IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL......