‘A European Court of Justice ruling could deal a “serious blow” to Theresa May’s most prized piece of legislation, campaigners have said.’
The Independent, 19th July 2016
Source; www.independent.co.uk
‘Peers have issued a serious warning that the government’s proposed “snooper’s charter” law could endanger journalists and their sources.’
The Guardian, 12th July 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Distinguished legal figures on the red benches lined up to condemn threats to professional privilege posed by the government’s investigatory powers bill as it passed its second reading in the House of Lords this week.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 29th June 2016
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Sometimes the most fundamental principles can be most vulnerable to attack and/or erosion. As the government strives to tackle the threat posed by those who seek to undermine our democratic values in the context of an increasingly digital age, legal professional privilege (LPP) is in danger of becoming just that kind of principle.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 28th June 2016
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Bereaved parents have demanded that police reveal whether the identities of their dead children were stolen by undercover officers who spied on political groups.’
The Guardian, 22nd June 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Terms of reference for an independent review of the operational case for bulk powers.’
Home Office, 7th June 2016
Source: www.gov.uk/home-office
‘Labour has edged closer to supporting the “snooper’s charter” after the home secretary, Theresa May, agreed to order an independent review of proposed state surveillance powers.’
The Guardian, 24th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Amongst the political noise of the Brexit campaign, the UK’s legislative plans set out in the Queen’s speech yesterday received less attention than usual. But there were some important points to note for the technology sector.’
Technology Law Update, 19th May 2016
Source: www.technology-law-blog.co.uk
‘The Psychoactive Substances Act will introduce a blanket ban on the production, distribution, sale and supply of legal highs.’
The Independent, 23rd May 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The police must confront the “poison of decades-old misdeeds”, the Home Secretary Theresa May has told officers, raising hopes that she is close to ordering an inquiry into police misconduct during the 1980s miners’ strike.’
The Independent, 17th May 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘A UK law enforcement agency asked a court to force alleged hacker Lauri Love to reveal passwords for computers they confiscated. The Court said no. The problem? That would bypass human rights safeguards UK Parliament built into investigatory powers laws.’
RightsInfo, 11th May 2016
Source: www.rightsinfo.org
‘An alleged hacker fighting extradition to the US will not have to give the passwords for his encrypted computers to British law enforcement officers, following a landmark legal ruling.’
The Guardian, 10th May 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘MPs, councillors and civil servants suspected of corruption are to be targeted by a new law proposed by the home secretary.’
BBC News, 21st April 2016
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Claims an undercover officer set fire to a high street department store while infiltrating animal rights campaigners are being investigated by the police.’
The Independent, 20th April 2016
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Following on from the first post focusing on the double-lock in the Investigatory Powers Bill (“the Bill”). This second entry looks at the “institutional and procedural” issues around the introduction of judicial scrutiny of surveillance warrants in the UK. Therefore, attention is on the office of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPCr) itself. I will assess the degree to which the IPCr is independent from the executive. Thereafter, consideration is given to the procedure by which the Judicial Commissioners (JCs) will conduct their ex ante oversight function. Concerns in both these areas were raised when a Draft version of the Bill was before a Joint Committee of Parliament (“the Committee”). After nearly four months of gathering both written and oral evidence, the Committee reported in February and the Bill got its second reading on March 15th this year.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 15th April 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘The EU’s highest court will hear arguments on Tuesday concerning the validity of UK data retention laws.’
OUT-LAW.com, 12th April 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The legality of Britain’s surveillance laws will come under the intense scrutiny of 15 European judges on Tuesday in a politically sensitive test case that could limit powers to gather online data.’
The Guardian, 11th April 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘When the Home Secretary commended the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in November 2015, she lauded the oversight mechanisms in the Bill as ‘world-leading.’ A seminal feature of this new regime is the creation of a single Investigatory Powers Commissioner (IPCr) who is aided by a set of Judicial Commissioners (JCs) in exercising both ex ante and ex post facto oversight over the use of a range of surveillance measures. The IPCr will replace the existing fragmented (RIPA Part VI) framework of the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Office of Surveillance Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner whom hitherto have (largely) conducted ex post facto oversight functions.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 22nd March 2016
Source: www.ukconstitutionallaw.org
‘EU judges in Luxembourg could limit key powers in UK surveillance laws just weeks before Britain votes on its EU membership.’
The Guardian, 27th March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Police have been accused of concealing the involvement of two undercover officers in a long-running legal case from judges in the UK’s highest court.’
The Guardian, 21st March 2016
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025