*/
The Investigatory Powers Bill weakens legal privilege and undermines fair trials, the Bar Council has warned.
Despite assurances given that the new surveillance legislation would contain protections for lawyers, the Bar Council said the Bill – introduced on 1 March – allows authorities total access to confidential, legally privileged communications between individuals and their lawyers, even when someone is in a legal dispute with the government or defending themselves against prosecution.
A cross-party scrutiny committee recommended in February that legal professional privilege should be safeguarded in the Bill.
Commenting on the ‘far reaching’ implications for fundamental rights, and the short timetable allowed for its passage, Bar Chairman, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said she was ‘disappointed’ that the Bill does not provide sufficient protection for legal privilege on its face: ‘It is vital that this measure is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.’
Peter Carter QC, Chair of the Bar Council Surveillance and Privacy Working Group, said: ‘We have explained in very clear terms to the government that legal privilege does not apply where lawyer client communications reveal information that could be used to prevent a terror attack, foil a threat to national security, or bring an end to an ongoing crime such as a kidnapping or the abuse of a child. Neither does privilege apply where a lawyer is acting illegally.’
But he said the Bill ignores the distinction between privileged and non-privileged communications and ‘gives authorities powers to spy on sensitive, highly confidential communications that have nothing to do with criminality, national security or threats to individuals’.
The Investigatory Powers Bill weakens legal privilege and undermines fair trials, the Bar Council has warned.
Despite assurances given that the new surveillance legislation would contain protections for lawyers, the Bar Council said the Bill – introduced on 1 March – allows authorities total access to confidential, legally privileged communications between individuals and their lawyers, even when someone is in a legal dispute with the government or defending themselves against prosecution.
A cross-party scrutiny committee recommended in February that legal professional privilege should be safeguarded in the Bill.
Commenting on the ‘far reaching’ implications for fundamental rights, and the short timetable allowed for its passage, Bar Chairman, Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, said she was ‘disappointed’ that the Bill does not provide sufficient protection for legal privilege on its face: ‘It is vital that this measure is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny.’
Peter Carter QC, Chair of the Bar Council Surveillance and Privacy Working Group, said: ‘We have explained in very clear terms to the government that legal privilege does not apply where lawyer client communications reveal information that could be used to prevent a terror attack, foil a threat to national security, or bring an end to an ongoing crime such as a kidnapping or the abuse of a child. Neither does privilege apply where a lawyer is acting illegally.’
But he said the Bill ignores the distinction between privileged and non-privileged communications and ‘gives authorities powers to spy on sensitive, highly confidential communications that have nothing to do with criminality, national security or threats to individuals’.
Chair of the Bar reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
With gender earnings inequality at the Bar getting worse, not better, Judith Ayling KC discusses concrete solutions and collective action – including steps taken by the Personal Injuries Bar Association
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
