*/
Beefed up safeguards should be in place before communications between lawyers and their clients are spied on, the UK’s terror watchdog said in a report on the future of Britain’s surveillance laws.
In a 373-page report, A Question of Trust, David Anderson QC accepted that security and intelligence agencies should have powers to carry out bulk collection of personal communications, but called for greater safeguards in the use of such data.
He recommended that the power to authorise “novel or contentious” requests to intercept communications should move from the hands of minsters to a judicial commissioner, under a new body called the Independent Surveillance and Intelligence Commission.
Acknowledging the importance of legal privilege as the “cornerstone of a society governed by law”, he said special restrictions should apply in relation to communications between lawyers and their clients, with similar considerations for journalists and others who handle privileged information.
The government-commissioned report to examine how the law in this area should be modernised, came in the wake of former US spy Edward Snowdon’s revelations about surveillance.
It was published a few days after two MPs, Labour’s Tom Watson and Conservative David Davis, began their High Court challenge to the legality of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIP).
The pair, backed by human rights group Liberty, claim that the emergency law, rushed through Parliament last July, is incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life, and to data protection, under the Human Rights Act and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Bar Chairman Alistair MacDonald QC commented that DRIP and its predecessor, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, require “urgent revision” by Parliament.
“Together they have given dubious legal authority to security services to listen in on communications between lawyers and clients. This undermines legal professional privilege, one of the most important safeguards protecting the fairness of a trial and a doctrine that has existed as a constitutional principle for centuries,” he said.
If the state eavesdrops on privileged communications to gather intelligence, he said clients will feel unable to speak openly with their lawyers. “This has the potential result that defence teams will not even know about perfectly proper defences open to a defendant and will therefore not be able to advance them at trial.”
Beefed up safeguards should be in place before communications between lawyers and their clients are spied on, the UK’s terror watchdog said in a report on the future of Britain’s surveillance laws.
In a 373-page report, A Question of Trust, David Anderson QC accepted that security and intelligence agencies should have powers to carry out bulk collection of personal communications, but called for greater safeguards in the use of such data.
He recommended that the power to authorise “novel or contentious” requests to intercept communications should move from the hands of minsters to a judicial commissioner, under a new body called the Independent Surveillance and Intelligence Commission.
Acknowledging the importance of legal privilege as the “cornerstone of a society governed by law”, he said special restrictions should apply in relation to communications between lawyers and their clients, with similar considerations for journalists and others who handle privileged information.
The government-commissioned report to examine how the law in this area should be modernised, came in the wake of former US spy Edward Snowdon’s revelations about surveillance.
It was published a few days after two MPs, Labour’s Tom Watson and Conservative David Davis, began their High Court challenge to the legality of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIP).
The pair, backed by human rights group Liberty, claim that the emergency law, rushed through Parliament last July, is incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life, and to data protection, under the Human Rights Act and the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Bar Chairman Alistair MacDonald QC commented that DRIP and its predecessor, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, require “urgent revision” by Parliament.
“Together they have given dubious legal authority to security services to listen in on communications between lawyers and clients. This undermines legal professional privilege, one of the most important safeguards protecting the fairness of a trial and a doctrine that has existed as a constitutional principle for centuries,” he said.
If the state eavesdrops on privileged communications to gather intelligence, he said clients will feel unable to speak openly with their lawyers. “This has the potential result that defence teams will not even know about perfectly proper defences open to a defendant and will therefore not be able to advance them at trial.”
The Chair of the Bar reports back
Susie Griffin on the admin that keeps barristers from billable work
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, explains how global events can influence the performance of pensions and ISAs, and why taking a long-term approach to investing is often the most effective strategy
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, discusses what family law professionals need to know about hallucinogens, from the main hallucinogenic drugs encountered in family proceedings, to their effects and the testing options available
Harmony Christian Ministries is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
By David Green
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Leah Arthur, a pupil, and her second seat supervisor, John Goss, share their perspectives on building a productive pupil-supervisor relationship
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
The Ministry of Justice will match-fund up to 100 criminal pupillages, with grants available to criminal chambers across England and Wales. Similar to the COIC scheme, the grants will match-fund pupillages additional to those otherwise offered without government funding
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
