header-logo header-logo

12 February 2015
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Surveillance under scrutiny

GCHQ acted unlawfully when it used intelligence gathered by the US National Security Agency’s mass electronic surveillance programmes PRISM and Upstream, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal has ruled.

The relationship between the British and US intelligence agencies led to GCHQ unlawfully accessing millions of people’s private communications. The relationship between the two was discovered after civil liberties organisations brought a legal challenge in the wake of the Edward Snowden whistleblower revelations.

Last week’s ruling, Liberty & Ors v Foreign Secretary [2015] UKIPTrib 13_77-H is a landmark because it is the first time the Tribunal has found against the intelligence agencies in its 15-year history. The Tribunal was set up to consider complaints against GCHQ, MI5 and MI6.

However, the Tribunal held that GCHQ’s access to NSA intelligence is lawful from December 2014, when the secret relationship was made public.

Liberty is mounting a challenge against the Tribunal’s decision at the European Court of Human Rights—it wants more stringent safeguards on surveillance and intelligence-sharing.

Eric King, deputy director of Privacy International, says: “We must not allow agencies to continue justifying mass surveillance programs using secret interpretations of secret laws.”

However, a GCHQ statement says the judgment focused on a “discrete and purely historical issue” and “confirms the UK’s bulk interception regime was fully compliant with the right to privacy at all times, both before and at the time of the legal proceedings”. A GCHQ spokesperson says: “We are pleased that the court has once again ruled that the UK’s bulk interception regime is fully lawful. It follows the court’s clear rejection of accusations of ‘mass surveillance’ in their December judgment.”

Issue: 7640 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll