Reference to the EU court on legality of bulk communications data collection
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Ors IPT/15/110/CH
The tribunal considered whether the collection of Bulk Communications Data (BCD) and Bulk Personal Data (BPD) by the intelligence agencies fell within the scope of EU law and thus whether it was compliant. A reference was made to the European Court on the basis that it was unclear as to whether the use of such data for the purposes of national security was governed by EU law and subject to relevant requirements.
Met police obtained officer’s communications data unlawfully – compensation awarded
Andrew & Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (IPT/390/16/CH & IPT/29/16/CH)
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that the MPS’ obtaining of the complainants’ communications data, following alleged misconduct, breached ECHR, art 8 rights. The authorisations were quashed and the communications data was ordered to be deleted. Compensation was to be paid to the first complainant.
Use of spying powers by police breach ECHR, arts 10 and 8
Dias v Chief Constable of Cleveland Police [2017] UKIPTrib 15_586-CH
A series of communications data authorisations relating to police officers and journalists were unlawful.
Intelligence Agencies acted contrary to ECHR in collection of bulk data
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Ors [2016] UKIPTrib 15_110-CH
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal held that the Security and Intelligence Agencies had acted unlawfully and contrary to ECHR, art 8 in their collection of bulk communications data and bulk personal data. Jonathan Glasson QC was Counsel to the Tribunal.
Tribunal considered issues related to GCHQ hacking challenge
Privacy International v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs & Ors and another case [2016] UKIPTrib 14_85-CH
The tribunal held open inter partes hearings to determine a list of issues to be resolved, as part of proceedings brought by the claimants challenging the lawfulness of the GCHQ’s alleged use of computer network exploitation or ‘hacking’, which may have affected the claimants.