R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|2019 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case}} |
{{Short description|2019 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case}} |
||
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} |
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}} |
||
{{missing information|what the case was about|date=September 2021}} |
|||
{{Infobox court case|name=R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal|court=[[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]]|citations={{Unbulleted list|[2019] UKSC 22|[2019] 2 WLR 1219|[2019] HRLR 13|[2019] 4 All ER 1}}|DecideDate={{Start date|2019|05|15|df=y}}|appealed from=[2017] EWCA Civ 1868|full name=R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others}} |
{{Infobox court case|name=R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal|court=[[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]]|citations={{Unbulleted list|[2019] UKSC 22|[2019] 2 WLR 1219|[2019] HRLR 13|[2019] 4 All ER 1}}|DecideDate={{Start date|2019|05|15|df=y}}|appealed from=[2017] EWCA Civ 1868|full name=R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others}} |
||
'''''R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal''''' [[Case citation|[2019] UKSC 22]], is a judgment of the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]]. It caused controversy due to the majority's suggestion that courts will not give effect to [[Ouster clause|ouster clauses]] even when Parliament's intent is clear, thus undermining the concept of [[parliamentary sovereignty]]. |
'''''R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal''''' [[Case citation|[2019] UKSC 22]], is a judgment of the [[Supreme Court of the United Kingdom]]. It caused controversy due to the majority's suggestion that courts will not give effect to [[Ouster clause|ouster clauses]] even when Parliament's intent is clear, thus undermining the concept of [[parliamentary sovereignty]]. |
||
== Facts == |
|||
Section 67(8) of the [[Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000]] purported to exclude from challenge or appeal any decision of the [[Investigatory Powers Tribunal]] (IPT). The Tribunal ruled against an application by Privacy International relating to the proper construction of a section of the [[Intelligence Services Act 1994]]. |
|||
Privacy International sought judicial review of the IPT's decision. It lost in both the High Court ([[Brian Leveson|Sir Brian Leveson P]] and [[George Leggatt, Lord Leggatt|Leggatt J]]) and in the Court of Appeal ([[Philip Sales, Lord Sales|Sales]], [[Julian Flaux|Flaux]], and [[Christopher Floyd|Floyd]] LJJ). |
|||
== Judgment == |
== Judgment == |
||
Revision as of 02:12, 15 June 2023
| R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United Kingdom |
| Full case name | R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others |
| Decided | 15 May 2019 |
| Citations |
|
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | [2017] EWCA Civ 1868 |
R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It caused controversy due to the majority's suggestion that courts will not give effect to ouster clauses even when Parliament's intent is clear, thus undermining the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
Facts
Section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 purported to exclude from challenge or appeal any decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT). The Tribunal ruled against an application by Privacy International relating to the proper construction of a section of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.
Privacy International sought judicial review of the IPT's decision. It lost in both the High Court (Sir Brian Leveson P and Leggatt J) and in the Court of Appeal (Sales, Flaux, and Floyd LJJ).
Judgment
Lord Sumption (with whom Lord Reed agreed) and Lord Wilson dissented.[1]
Commentary
Richard Ekins said the ruling "undermines the rule of law and violates the sovereignty of Parliament".[2]
References
Citations
- ^ Scott 2020, p. 108.
- ^ Dawson, Joanna (28 May 2019). "What does the Supreme Court's ruling on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal mean for parliamentary sovereignty?". House of Commons Library. Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 3 September 2021.
Bibliography
- Scott, Paul F. (January 2020). "Once More unto the Breach: R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal". Edinburgh Law Review. 24 (1): 103–109. doi:10.3366/elr.2020.0605. eISSN 1755-1692. ISSN 1364-9809.
Further reading
- Webb, Thomas E. (2021). "R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, Supreme Court". Essential Cases: Public Law (4th ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0056. ISBN 978-0-19-192644-0.
- Elliott, Mark; Young, Alison L. (2019). "Privacy International in the Supreme Court: Jurisdiction, the Rule of Law, and Parliamentary Sovereignty". Cambridge Law Journal. 78 (3). Cambridge University Press: 490–496. doi:10.1017/S0008197319000813. eISSN 1469-2139. ISSN 0008-1973. S2CID 210531385.