R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal
{{Short description|2019 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=April 2022}}
{{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 [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.{{Sfn|Scott|2020|p=108}}
Commentary
Richard Ekins said the ruling "undermines the rule of law and violates the sovereignty of Parliament".{{Cite news|last=Dawson|first=Joanna|date=28 May 2019|title=What does the Supreme Court's ruling on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal mean for parliamentary sovereignty?|work=House of Commons Library|url=https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-does-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-the-investigatory-powers-tribunal-mean-for-parliamentary-sovereignty/|access-date=3 September 2021|archive-date=25 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225104438/https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/what-does-the-supreme-courts-ruling-on-the-investigatory-powers-tribunal-mean-for-parliamentary-sovereignty/|url-status=live}} According to Ekins, any judge who deliberately ignored an ouster clause "would warrant removal from office in accordance with the terms of the Senior Courts Act 1981".{{Cite news |last=Bowcott |first=Owen |last2= |first2= |date=2019-05-15 |title=UK government security decisions can be challenged in court, judges rule |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/15/government-security-gchq-decisions-can-be-challenged-in-court-judges-rule |access-date=2023-06-15 |issn=0261-3077}}
References
= Citations =
{{Reflist}}
= Bibliography =
- {{Cite journal|last=Scott|first=Paul F.|date=January 2020|title=Once More unto the Breach: R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal|journal=Edinburgh Law Review|volume=24|issue=1|pages=103–109|doi=10.3366/elr.2020.0605|issn=1364-9809|eissn=1755-1692|doi-access=free}}
Further reading
- {{Cite book|last=Webb|first=Thomas E.|title=Essential Cases: Public Law|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2021|edition=4th|chapter=R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, Supreme Court|doi=10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0056|isbn=978-0-19-192644-0}}
- {{Cite journal|last1=Elliott|first1=Mark|last2=Young|first2=Alison L.|date=2019|title=Privacy International in the Supreme Court: Jurisdiction, the Rule of Law, and Parliamentary Sovereignty|journal=Cambridge Law Journal|publisher=Cambridge University Press|volume=78|issue=3|pages=490–496|doi=10.1017/S0008197319000813|s2cid=210531385|issn=0008-1973|eissn=1469-2139}}