To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal
CourtSupreme Court of the United Kingdom
Full case nameR (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others
Decided15 May 2019 (2019-05-15)
Citation(s)
  • [2019] UKSC 22
  • [2019] 2 WLR 1219
  • [2019] HRLR 13
  • [2019] 4 All ER 1
Case history
Appealed from[2017] EWCA Civ 1868

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.[1]

Commentary

Richard Ekins said the ruling "undermines the rule of law and violates the sovereignty of Parliament".[2] 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".[3]

References

Citations

  1. ^ Scott 2020, p. 108.
  2. ^ Dawson, Joanna (28 May 2019). "What does the Supreme Court's ruling on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal mean for parliamentary sovereignty?". House of Commons Library. Archived from the original on 25 February 2021. Retrieved 3 September 2021.
  3. ^ Bowcott, Owen (15 May 2019). "UK government security decisions can be challenged in court, judges rule". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 15 June 2023.

Bibliography

Further reading

This page was last edited on 15 June 2023, at 02:15
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.