*/
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
By Kem Kemal, CEO, Henry Dannell
By BSK Financial Planning
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs
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
Kick off your career at the Bar Council’s Pupillage Fair this October – it’s one of the most valuable opportunities for aspiring barristers, says Amelia Clegg
Join us on Saturday 21 November 2026 at Leeds Beckett University and see for yourself why the North continues to be an exceptional place to build a career at the Bar
The golden age of advocacy? David Langwallner pays homage to the filmic if contentious barrister Sir Edward Carson and some of his contemporaries
Henry Fingerhut outlines what the Bar Standards Board AI guidance means for early career barristers
Not yet, says Jacob Turner. Regulation, unlike the technology itself, is a domain the legal profession can still control
