*/
Plans for judicial oversight of surveillance requests are not as safe as they appear and fail to protect legal professional privilege (LPP), the Bar Council has warned.
A watered down draft Investigatory Powers Bill, published last month, introduces judicial approval of ministerial decisions to permit intelligence agencies to monitor communications.
But Bar Council Chairman, Alistair MacDonald QC, said the ‘double lock’ requirement of judicial and ministerial authorisation is not as secure as it is made out to be.
Ministers, he said, will be able to authorise the interception of communications in ‘urgent cases’, defined as up to five days without authorisation, where judicial approval is not possible.There are likely to be high volumes of such cases, believes MacDonald.
‘Excluding judicial authorisation under any circumstance immediately removes the element of independent oversight,’ he said.
MacDonald added that the Bill fails to protect LPP, leaving it to be dealt with in separate codes of practice to be published next year. ‘If the client, in sensitive cases, knows or suspects that his or her conversations with their lawyer are being overheard by agents of the state, they simply will not be able to be frank with their legal advisors and miscarriages of justice may occur,’ the Bar Chairman said.
‘We know from experience that these codes are little more than guidelines, and we need more than that to protect the important right to consult a lawyer in private. In the absence of any effective measures to make unlawful the targeting of communications between client and lawyer by public authorities, there is no meaningful protection for LPP,’ he added.
Plans for judicial oversight of surveillance requests are not as safe as they appear and fail to protect legal professional privilege (LPP), the Bar Council has warned.
A watered down draft Investigatory Powers Bill, published last month, introduces judicial approval of ministerial decisions to permit intelligence agencies to monitor communications.
But Bar Council Chairman, Alistair MacDonald QC, said the ‘double lock’ requirement of judicial and ministerial authorisation is not as secure as it is made out to be.
Ministers, he said, will be able to authorise the interception of communications in ‘urgent cases’, defined as up to five days without authorisation, where judicial approval is not possible.There are likely to be high volumes of such cases, believes MacDonald.
‘Excluding judicial authorisation under any circumstance immediately removes the element of independent oversight,’ he said.
MacDonald added that the Bill fails to protect LPP, leaving it to be dealt with in separate codes of practice to be published next year. ‘If the client, in sensitive cases, knows or suspects that his or her conversations with their lawyer are being overheard by agents of the state, they simply will not be able to be frank with their legal advisors and miscarriages of justice may occur,’ the Bar Chairman said.
‘We know from experience that these codes are little more than guidelines, and we need more than that to protect the important right to consult a lawyer in private. In the absence of any effective measures to make unlawful the targeting of communications between client and lawyer by public authorities, there is no meaningful protection for LPP,’ he added.
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
Responding to criticism on the narrow profile of government-instructed counsel, Mel Nebhrajani CB describes the system-wide change at GLD to drive fairer distribution of work and broader development of talent
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
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
