Preiskel & CoPreiskel & Co
Preiskel & Co
A boutique law firm in London
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Diversity, Social Responsibility, and Pro Bono
  • Services
    • Corporate
    • Commercial
    • Regulatory
    • Competition & Antitrust
    • Data Protection, Privacy, and Retention
    • Intellectual Property
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment
  • Sectors
    • Telecommunications
    • IT, Technology, & Internet
    • Media and Broadcasting
    • Websites, Blogging, & Social Media
    • Film & Television
    • Gambling & Online Gaming
    • Leisure & Retail
    • Energy & Minerals
    • Cryptocurrency & Blockchain
    • Creative Industries
  • People
    • Daniel Preiskel
    • Ronnie Preiskel
    • Tim Cowen
    • Jose Saras
    • Robert Dougans
    • Karthyaeni Vittala
    • Tina Cowen
    • Xavier Prida
    • Martina Raciti
    • Ewelina James
    • Rachael Machado
    • Maria Constantin
    • Peter Dally
    • Richard Stewart
    • Joanna Coombs-Huang
    • Paul Stelges
    • Hannah Leader
    • Alison MacFarlane
    • Ilanit Appelfeld
    • Daniel Oakland
    • Sophia Yakhno
    • Sue Warwick
    • D A T Green
    • Antony Corel
    • Stewart White
    • Mor Swiel
    • Stephen Hornsby
    • Tony Curzon-Price
    • Robert Harvey
    • Shardi Shameli
  • International
  • Blog
  • News
    • Publications
  • Contact
Menu back  

Judicial Review declares UK Government Surveillance Powers Unlawful

May 1, 2018By Preiskel & Co

Following an application for judicial review by Liberty (the National Council for Civil Liberties). The High Court has ruled that Part 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (the “Act”) is incompatible with European law. Broadly, this part of the Act allows the government to require that communications companies store customer emails, phone calls, internet history and location data in order that security personnel can access it. The High Court held that it is incompatible with fundamental rights in EU law in that access to retained data is not limited to the purpose of combating “serious crime”; and access to retained data is not subject to prior review by a court or independent administrative body (paragraph 186 of the judgment).

 

This decision follows a Court of Appeal ruling in January that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act was inconsistent with EU law due to its lack of sufficient safeguards. This decision followed an ECJ preliminary ruling on the matter, which stated that EU law precludes “national legislation which, for the purpose of fighting crime, provides for the general and indiscriminate retention of all traffic and location data of all subscribers and registered users relating to all means of electronic communication.” The High Court noted at paragraph 4 of its judgment that part 4 of the Act “substantially re-enacts the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014”.

 

Following these rulings, the government had indicated that it would amend Part 4 of the Act by secondary legislation, but until this happened, the unlawful retention of data was continuing; hence Liberty’s application for judicial review. The High Court’s ruling sets a deadline of 1 November 2018 for the requisite amendments to be made.

 

Anyone with questions regarding this development, data privacy and retention, and data protection more generally, please contact Jose Saras.

 

Data protectionData RetentionData Retention and Investigatory Powers ActData SecurityDRIPADRIPA 2014European lawInvestigatory Powers ActIPAIPA 2016Jose Sarasjudicial reviewLibertySnooper's CharterSurveillance
Latest Preiskel & Co blog posts
  • Apple’s Vision Pro Mixed Reality Headset Unveiled
    June 8, 2023
  • Tired of Cookie Banners? The EU “Cookie Pledge” against Cookie fatigue
    June 7, 2023
  • AI – Cybersecurity and Standardisation – The EU Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) Report
    May 30, 2023
  • Important EU Court decision for publishers and AdTech suppliers 
    May 18, 2023
  • Data Subject Access Requests right to a “copy” of personal data, CJEU Ruling
    May 17, 2023
  • GDPR-compensation for non-material damage not automatic, CJEU confirms
    May 17, 2023
  • Overview of the UAS Ofcom Drone Licence
    May 16, 2023
  • French watchdog directs Meta to change its “discriminatory” ad verification criteria
    May 11, 2023
  • Competition authorities around the world versus dominance in digital markets
    May 3, 2023
  • EDPB clarifies personal data breach notification requirements for non-EU controllers
    April 25, 2023
  • CMA probe spurs Google to change billing practices
    April 19, 2023
  • OpenAI’s ChatGPT banned in Italy
    April 18, 2023

The Preiskel Blog

  • Tired of Cookie Banners? The EU “Cookie Pledge” against Cookie fatigue 7 Jun 2023
  • AI – Cybersecurity and Standardisation – The EU Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) Report 30 May 2023
  • Important EU Court decision for publishers and AdTech suppliers  18 May 2023
  • Data Subject Access Requests right to a “copy” of personal data, CJEU Ruling 17 May 2023

Preiskel news

  • Preiskel & Co participating as co-sponsor of Corum Group’s upcoming London Merge Briefing event
  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, quoted by IT Pro on the costs incurred by MNOs
  • Senior Partner, Danny Preiskel, a panelist at GCCM Carrier Community 2023 on IOT
  • Jose Saras and Xavier Prida Awarded First Place as Data Protection Thought Leaders in the UK
Preiskel tweets
  • Apple’s Vision Pro Mixed Reality Headset Unveiled. Find out more here: https://t.co/ifWRgSMY1ryesterday
  • Tired of Cookie Banners? The EU “Cookie Pledge” against Cookie fatigue. Find out more here: https://t.co/1SrcVUKUDB2 days ago
  • AI – Cybersecurity and Standardisation – The EU Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA) Report findings. Please find out m… https://t.co/7jJApBSkm210 days ago
Preiskel & Co LLP
4 King's Bench Walk,
Temple,
London
EC4Y 7DL
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7332 5640
Email: info@preiskel.com

Find us on:

TwitterLinkedinMail
© Preiskel & Co LLP 2023 | Site map | Legal notices | Cookie Policy | Privacy