Security

Supreme Court says secret UK spy court's judgments can be overruled after all

It all went a bit Pete Tong for the Peeping Toms

By Gareth Corfield

41 SHARE

Britain's Supreme Court said today that rulings from a secretive UK spy tribunal can now be appealed against after a legal challenge from pressure group Privacy International.

Decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which rules on legal cases involving surveillance powers and the British spy agencies (MI5, MI6 and GCHQ), were previously immune from being appealed against. If you didn't like the IPT's verdict, tough – there was no way of asking a more senior judge to take a second look at it.

Section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act meant that, unlike any other law court in the UK, decisions of the IPT "shall not be subject to appeal or be liable to be questioned in any court".

Lord Carnwath, one of the Supreme Court judges who delivered the majority verdict of the seven-strong judicial panel, ruled today that even with that legal wording, decisions that were "legally invalid" could still be questioned. The common law, he said, has a strong presumption against "ouster", which is the legal idea of stopping the High Court from overturning junior courts' judgments by having its own judges review them.

"I am unimpressed by arguments based on the security issues involved in many (though not all) of the IPT's cases," said Lord Carnwath. "As this case shows, the tribunal itself is able to organise its procedures to ensure that a material point of law can be considered separately without threatening any security interests."

The judge also commented in an aside in the 113-page judgment that MPs cannot make laws that stop the High Court from enforcing the law: "Parliament cannot entrust a statutory decision-making process to a particular body, but then leave it free to disregard the essential requirements laid down by the rule of law for such a process to be effective."

Privacy International barrister Dinah Rose QC successfully argued that, contrary to what the spy agencies' lawyers said, the ordinary courts have plenty of ways of protecting secret and sensitive material when carrying out judicial reviews.

UK Supreme Court to probe British spy court's immunity from probing

READ MORE

Megan Goulding, a lawyer working for PI's fellow pressure group Liberty, which intervened in support of PI, said in a statement: "Putting oversight of the intelligence agencies – with their sweeping intrusive powers under the Snooper's Charter – beyond the review of ordinary courts, is not just undemocratic, but a sinister attempt to reduce the safeguards that protect our rights."

What kicked the whole case off was Privacy International starting a legal challenge against GCHQ hacking, which Britain's lax laws allow the spy agency to do more or less whenever and to whomever it pleases with few meaningful controls. When PI lost in the IPT, they tried to take it to judicial review in the High Court, only for the spy agencies to pull out the section 67(8) trump card. Both the High Court itself and the Court of Appeal agreed with PI.

Dissenting from Lord Carnwath were Lords Sumption and Wilson, who said section 67(8) was clear and that Parliament had obviously intended to ensure the IPT could not be judicially reviewed or otherwise appealed against.

You can read the full judgment here (PDF). ®

Sign up to our NewsletterGet IT in your inbox daily

41 Comments

More from The Register

Shut the barn door: UK data watchdog tells MPs mass slurping by firms is a huge risk to privacy

You need to rifle through my photos why, exactly?

We ain't afraid of no 'ghost user': Infosec world tells GCHQ to GTFO over privacy-busting proposals

Brit spies' idea would backdoor WhatsApp et al without breaking the crypto

Looks like Uncle Sam has pulled its finger out and appointed a Privacy Shield ombudsperson

White House to nominate former DocuSign boss

Probe Brit police phone-peeking plans, privacy peeps plead

Investigatory Powers Commissioner urged to act on mobile data extraction tech

US legal eagle: Well done, you bought privacy compliance tools. Doesn't mean you comply with anything

From California state regs to Europe's GDPR: It's all just a 'veneer of protection'

MOS-SAD: Israeli govt weighs in on Facebook privacy, promises action

Israel Cyber Week Spymaster whines about smartphone privacy

Info Commish offers privacy addicts a 12-step GDPR programme

Get clean from your data sins

MI5: Gosh, awkward. We looked down the sofa and, yeah, we *do* have intel on privacy bods

Snoops cop to shady 'Workings' where data retention rules don't apply

Dob in naughty data slurps to top EU court, privacy groups urge

11 member states grassed on to European Commission – including the UK

International politicos line up to get shot down by Facebook

Firm: We know you wanna chat, guys, but Zuck won't Friend you