Sign in / up

back to article UK spy court ruled immune from judicial review – for now

The UK's Court of Appeal has ruled that the body that oversees the nation's intelligence agencies cannot be held subject to a judicial review under active laws. In a judgment handed down yesterday, the court rejected an argument from campaign group Privacy International that aimed to use case law to back up its the right to …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *
  1. Anonymous Blowhard

    The problem is they called themselves "Privacy International", which means they're something to do with foreigners! If they'd called themselves "UK Privacy" or "Privacy England" then GCHQ would have realised they're a British organisation, who are only going about their lawful business, and left them alone...

    13 4 Reply
    1. Jonathan Schwatrz
      Reply Icon
      Alert

      Re: Anonymous Blowhard

      "The problem is they called themselves "Privacy International", which means they're something to do with foreigners!....." That would be a lot funnier if Privacy International weren't getting a shed load of their "donations" from George Soros's Open Society Foundations. If you think Russia spending a $100k on Facebook ads really affected an election, you might be worried if you consider Soros has been accused of spending $18 billion on messing with European politics....

      1 11 Reply
  2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

    ECJ will get to rule on this

    Treesaregreen and her merry little band of fascists (ruling by the stick and intimidation) will probably have to watch this get referred to the ECJ whose judgment they will then have to respect and possibly even act into law before they can think about repealing it… Fuckwits.

    15 4 Reply
  3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    This trick of replacing the legislation as soon as it receives what looks like a serious challenge seems to be a source of endless wriggle room.

    18 0 Reply
    1. Warm Braw
      Reply Icon

      Indeed. RIPA itself was brought in because it was feared that the previous legal basis for surveillance wouldn't stand up in the face of the Human Rights Act. Rinse and repeat...

      22 0 Reply
      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        " RIPA itself was brought in because it was feared that the previous legal basis for surveillance wouldn't stand up in the face of the Human Rights Act. Rinse and repeat."

        They probably have a few more in the filing cabinet ready to be pressed into service as required.

        14 1 Reply
  4. redpawn

    So glad I live in the US

    where we .... Oh never mind.

    25 1 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Angel

      Re: So glad I live in the US

      In the US, the FISA Court is subject to judicial review, by the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. After that, there's the SCOTUS.

      Said judicial review is always ex parte, and might not always go the way one had hoped, but, there is judicial review.

      7 1 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So glad I live in the US

        Which obviously works well as Americans have never been spied on by their own country....

        0 0 Reply
  5. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Gimp

    "parliament could not have intended..as excluding all resource to judicial review, "

    Perhaps not.

    But you can bet the actual data fetishist civil servants who wrote it certainly did.

    A Snoopers Charter, and a Snoopers Court to rubber stamp any warrants issued under it.

    "Legal oversight" British Civil Servant style*

    *Not British government style. Because the (mostly) PPE career cabal of Aholes who do this won't be routed out by a change of government. The death of the monkey won't stop the organ grinder getting another one. Different monkey, same tune.

    16 3 Reply
  6. Martin-73 Silver badge

    The court's decision doesn't actually matter

    If the court can't oversee GCHQ, then the court has no basis to be ruling on this either. ... due to recursion. Check mate, fascists

    17 3 Reply
  7. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    Who is going to save us from the cyber islamofascist terrorists

    What I have always wondered is why the intelligence agencies expend most of their energies in spying on their own people, in order to protect us from the islamofascists. ref ref

    12 2 Reply
    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Reply Icon
      Childcatcher

      "in order to protect us from the islamofascists."

      Or the even worse paedoterrorists.

      11 5 Reply
      1. Bernard M. Orwell
        Reply Icon

        Re: "in order to protect us from the islamofascists."

        "...Or the even worse paedoterrorists."

        Fire the Terrorpaedos!

        1 1 Reply
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Well, I prefer the practical approach.

    Frankly, I have never waited for any defence from the legal side (at least not in the UK) because the legal system isn't exactly focused on justice for the man in the street (I wonder if Privacy International isn't better off going to Trading Standards and have the Ministry of Justice talked to for false claims - the "justice" part is IMHO strongly misleading).

    Crypto Everywhere, hosted abroad. Just do it. Just leave enough other deceptive data around to create plausible deniability.

    10 4 Reply
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A Very Britiish Coup

    Now all they need to do is plant false evidence (if required) and then blackmail MP's.

    Welcome to FSB 2.0.

    12 2 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A Very Britiish Coup

      "if required" is fairly generous - seems most weeks there's some story about MPs getting up to stuff?

      0 0 Reply
  10. localzuk Silver badge

    What an absurd situation

    A tribunal which can determine its own jurisdiction, the extent of its own powers and cannot be appealed. Ridiculous and would be thrown out if it ended up in the ECJ.

    14 1 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What an absurd situation

      A tribunal which can determine its own jurisdiction, the extent of its own powers and cannot be appealed.

      Sounds very much like the ECJ itself, actually. In reality any court of last resort is in a position to bend interpret the law pretty much as it wishes.

      3 3 Reply
      1. localzuk Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: What an absurd situation

        Problem is, the Supreme Court in the UK is our court of last resort, and whilst we're a member, the ECJ above that.

        This little tribunal is not any such thing, and appears to have the ability to make judgments which can't be appealed to either.

        4 0 Reply
        1. graeme leggett Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: What an absurd situation

          ECJ is invoked in cases relating to EU law.

          Wouldn't ECHR be the right court of appeal? assuming invoking Human Rights Act 1998 etc

          0 0 Reply
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What an absurd situation

      ECJ while we are in EU, before a former Home Secretary crashes us out of that potential avenue for protection from Home Secretaries

      2 4 Reply
  11. Gary Heard
    Headmaster

    Privacy International's QC, Dinah Rose, said the section must be read in restricted terms – parliament could not have intended it to be read as excluding all resource to judicial review, she said.

    Repeat after me (100 times)

    Recourse not resource

    2 0 Reply
  12. scrubber
    Facepalm

    General Warrants

    "the Secretary of State can issue warrants in general terms"

    Didn't we lose the 13 western colonies due to this exact thing?

    James Otis Jr.’s famous oration in Paxton’s Case said that he would to his “dying day oppose all such instruments of slavery on the one hand, and villainy on the other” as writs of assistance (a particular form of general warrant). President John Adams, who had been present at Otis’s argument, later reflected, “Then and there the child Independence was born.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/06/14/americas-founders-hated-general-warrants-so-why-has-the-government-resurrected-them/?utm_term=.f45c267cb609

    0 0 Reply
    1. graeme leggett Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: General Warrants

      Taking a hands-off approach to the colonies and then turning to a very much hands-on approach is what caused the loss. Throw in lots of mis-reading of the situation by the powers that be and long communication delays.

      A little military mishandling as well and ta-dah a new nation is born.

      0 0 Reply

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like