Legality of judicial review of IPT decisions
R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2017] EWHC 114 (Admin)
Judicial Review against a decision of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal that held that s 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 was wide enough to encompass computer and network exploitation. The case sought to establish that s 67 (8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 did not prevent judicial review of a decision of the IPT when it errs in law, and that the proper construction of s 5 of the 1994 Act does not permit such computer and network exploitation.
High Court held that parliament must vote on triggering Article 50
R (Miller & Anor) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union & Ors [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin)
Held: the Government is not entitled to give notice of a decision to leave the EU under Article 50 by exercise of the prerogative powers of the Crown and without reference to Parliament. The Court ruled that nothing in the European Communities Act 1972 supports this power of the Crown. The Court considered the sovereignty […]
Pre-trial disclosure issues in claim subjected to closed material procedure direction
R (K, A and B) v Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWHC 1261 (Admin)
The court was asked to consider various issues relating to pre-trial disclosure in a claim that was subject to a closed material procedure direction under the Justice and Security Act 2013, s 6. The issues arose in relation to litigation brought by three individuals, who claim to have acted for the defendant as covert human intelligence sources in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2013.
Court reject challenge to EU membership referendum franchise and ’15 year rule’
Shindler & Anor v Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [2016] EWHC 957 (Admin)
Challenge to the legality of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, s 2. The impugned provision details the franchise in the forthcoming EU membership referendum. It excludes British citizens resident abroad who were last registered to vote in UK Parliamentary elections more than 15 years ago. The court gave permission to seek judicial review, but ultimately refused the application.
Search warrant and seizure were lawful even where information disclosed was not sufficient to support the issuing of the warrant
Haralambous v St Albans Crown Court & Anor [2016] EWHC 916 (Admin)
Whether a search warrant could be lawful where there was insufficient evidence supporting the warrant disclosed to the claimant, given the court’s finding that redaction of evidence was necessary on public interest grounds. Held: The search warrant was not invalid. A judge could consider undisclosed material and restrict disclosure of information that led to the issue of warrants, where this was necessary in the public interest.