Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

Last updated
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom (HM Government).svg
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Citation 2014 c. 27
Introduced by Theresa May 14 July 2014
Territorial extentUnited Kingdom
Dates
Royal assent 17 July 2014 [1]
Commencement 17 July 2014 [2]
Repealed31 December 2016
Status: Repealed
History of passage through Parliament
Text of statute as originally enacted
Revised text of statute as amended

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (also known as DRIP or DRIPA) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, repealed in 2016. It received Royal Assent on 17 July 2014, after being introduced on 14 July 2014. [1] [3] The purpose of the legislation was to allow security services to continue to have access to phone and internet records of individuals following a previous repeal[ dubious – discuss ] of these rights by the Court of Justice of the European Union. [4] The act was criticised by some Members of Parliament for the speed at which the act was passed through parliament, [4] by some groups (such as the Open Rights Group and Liberty) as being an infringement of privacy. [5]

Contents

Following legal action, in July 2015, the High Court of Justice issued an order that sections 1 and 2 of the Act were unlawful, and to be disapplied, suspended until 31 March 2016, thereby giving the government a deadline to come up with alternative legislation which would be compatible with EU law. [6] [7] [8]

As of 4 November 2015 an investigatory powers parliamentary bill was being drafted providing new surveillance powers, requiring records to be kept by Internet Service Providers tracking use of the internet from the UK, accessible by the police and security services without judicial oversight. [9]

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was repealed on 31 December 2016 and replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Revocation

On 1 August 2014, the Data Retention Regulations 2014 came into force, completing the framework introduced by the DRIP. They provide that a communications service provider can be required to retain data only when target of a notice of the Secretary of State. In December 2014, in R (on the application of David Davis MP and Tom Watson MP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr Justice Lewis (High Court) granted the Claimants permission to proceed to a substantive hearing, thus agreeing that the DRIP can be challenged by judicial review. As a reaction, the Government proposed using the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (CTSB) to extend their remit to cover data generated as a result of internet communications.

On 4 June 2015 a legal challenge against the law was brought to the High Court by two MPs, Labour's Tom Watson and the Conservative David Davis represented by the civil liberties organisation Liberty. They claimed that the act was rushed through parliament and was incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights. [10]

On 17 July 2015 the High Court upheld the challenge, finding sections 1 and 2 of the Act to be unlawful. [11] [12] The court found that the section 1 of the Act was contrary to EU law as a result of breaches of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU by virtue of the rights under Article 7 to a "private and family life, home and communications" and under article 8 which provides rights of the data held on an individual. The court found that these rights were breached based on the conclusions reached in Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and others and the conjoined case of Kärntner Landesregierung. [8] The court issued an order that sections 1 and 2 be disapplied, suspended until 31 March 2016, thereby giving the government a deadline to come up with alternative legislation which is compatible with EU law. [6] [8]

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal began hearing the Home Secretary's appeal against the ruling. [13] The Court of Appeal accepted, on a provisional basis, the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary and decided to refer certain aspects of the judgement to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. In particular, the Court of Appeal found that the Digital Rights Ireland case did not result in mandatory requirements applicable to all Member States' data retention regimes. [14] The Court of Appeal referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union as to whether the Digital Rights Ireland case should law down mandatory requirements for the national legislation of member states and whether this resulted in an expansion of the effects of Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter beyond the effect of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [15]

On 21 December 2016 the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in joined cases that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was unlawful. The court found on the first question referred by the Court of Appeal that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does preclude legislation which provides for access to retained traffic and location data by certain national authorities where this is not restricted to fighting serious crime or where the right to access is not subject to a prior court review. The ECJ found that the second question referred by the Court of Appeal was inadmissible. [16]

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) was repealed on 31 December 2016 and replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Following the EU judgement (and after the repeal of the act) the matters was again referred to the Court of Appeal. In this judgement the Court of Appeal granted declaratory relief in respect of the areas in which it was found that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 was incompatible with EU law. The relief was limited to the context that making use of data collected under the act in prosecuting crimes was only admissible where it had been restricted to fighting serious crime or access had been subject to court review. [17]

Overview

The main provisions of the act were: [18]

See also

Related Research Articles

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 United Kingdom legislation

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c.23) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, regulating the powers of public bodies to carry out surveillance and investigation, and covering the interception of communications. It was introduced by the Tony Blair Labour government ostensibly to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption.

Mass surveillance Intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population

Mass surveillance is the intricate surveillance of an entire or a substantial fraction of a population in order to monitor that group of citizens. The surveillance is often carried out by local and federal governments or governmental organizations, such as organizations like the Stasi, but it may also be carried out by corporations. Depending on each nation's laws and judicial systems, the legality of and the permission required to engage in mass surveillance varies. It is the single most indicative distinguishing trait of totalitarian regimes. It is also often distinguished from targeted surveillance.

Liberty (advocacy group) UK advocacy group and membership organisation

Liberty, formerly, and still formally, called the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), is an advocacy group and membership organisation based in the United Kingdom, which challenges unjust laws, protects civil liberties and promotes human rights. It does this through the courts, in Parliament and in the wider community. Liberty also aims to engender a "rights culture" within British society. The NCCL was founded in 1934 by Ronald Kidd and Sylvia Crowther-Smith, motivated by their humanist convictions.

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004 that the detention without trial of eight foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with European human rights laws.

Human rights in the United Kingdom Overview of the observance of human rights in the United Kingdom

Human rights in the United Kingdom concern the fundamental rights in law of every person in the United Kingdom. An integral part of the UK constitution, human rights derive from common law, from statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, from membership of the Council of Europe, and from international law.

Data retention defines the policies of persistent data and records management for meeting legal and business data archival requirements. Although sometimes interchangeable, it is not to be confused with the Data Protection Act 1998.

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom are part of UK constitutional law and have a long and formative history. This is usually considered to have begun with Magna Carta of 1215, a landmark document in British constitutional history. Development of civil liberties advanced in common law and statute law in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably with the Bill of Rights 1689. During the 19th century, working-class people struggled to win the right to vote and join trade unions. Parliament responded with new legislation beginning with the Reform Act 1832. Attitudes towards suffrage and liberties progressed further in the aftermath of the first and second world wars. Since then, the United Kingdom's relationship to civil liberties has been mediated through its membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom, through Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the drafting of the Convention, which expresses a traditional civil libertarian theory. It became directly applicable in UK law with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Data Retention Directive European Union directive on storing telephony communications

The Data Retention Directive was passed on 15 March 2006 and regulated data retention, where data has been generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks. It amended the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications. According to the Data Retention Directive, EU member states had to store citizens' telecommunications data for a minimum of six months and at most twenty-four months.

Homeland Security is an executive directorate of the UK government Home Office, created in 2007, responsible for leading the work on counter-terrorism in the UK, working closely with the police and security services. The office reports to the Home Secretary, and to the Minister of State for Security and Counter-Terrorism. Its current Director General is Chloe Squires, who is the senior government official responsible for counter-terrorist and organised crime strategy.

Big Brother Watch is a non-profit non-party British civil liberties and privacy campaigning organisation. It was launched in 2009 by founding director Alex Deane to campaign against state surveillance and threats to civil liberties. It was founded by Matthew Elliott.

Investigatory Powers Tribunal UK judicial body which investigates complaints about state surveillance

In the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) is a judicial body, independent of the British government, which hears complaints about surveillance by public bodies—in fact, "the only Tribunal to whom complaints about the Intelligence Services can be directed".

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 United Kingdom legislation

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. As the Protection of Freedoms Bill, it was introduced in February 2011, by the Home Secretary, Theresa May. The bill was sponsored by the Home Office. On Tuesday, 1 May 2012, the Protection of Freedoms Bill completed its passage through Parliament and received royal assent.

There is no absolute right to privacy in Australian law and there is no clearly recognised tort of invasion of privacy or similar remedy available to people who feel their privacy has been violated. Privacy is, however, affected and protected in limited ways by common law in Australia and a range of federal, state and territorial laws, as well as administrative arrangements.

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation is an independent person, appointed by the Home Secretary and by the Treasury for a renewable three-year term and tasked with reporting to the Home Secretary and to Parliament on the operation of counter-terrorism law in the UK. The last three Reviewers were Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE QC (2001-2011), a barrister, former Liberal Democrat MP and member of the House of Lords, David Anderson QC (2011-2017), a barrister in private practice who later became a cross-bench peer, and Max Hill QC (2017-2018), a criminal advocate well known for his experience as a prosecutor in terrorism cases. Appointments to the part-time role are now made under the public appointments procedure.

The Draft Communications Data Bill was draft legislation proposed by then Home Secretary Theresa May in the United Kingdom which would require Internet service providers and mobile phone companies to maintain records of each user's internet browsing activity, email correspondence, voice calls, internet gaming, and mobile phone messaging services and store the records for 12 months. Retention of email and telephone contact data for this time is already required by the Data Retention Regulations 2014. The anticipated cost was £1.8 billion.

Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom Overview of mass surveillance in the United Kingdom

The use of electronic surveillance by the United Kingdom grew from the development of signal intelligence and pioneering code breaking during World War II. In the post-war period, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was formed and participated in programmes such as the Five Eyes collaboration of English-speaking nations. This focused on intercepting electronic communications, with substantial increases in surveillance capabilities over time. A series of media reports in 2013 revealed bulk collection and surveillance capabilities, including collection and sharing collaborations between GCHQ and the United States' National Security Agency. These were commonly described by the media and civil liberties groups as mass surveillance. Similar capabilities exist in other western European countries, such as France.

Investigatory Powers Act 2016 United Kingdom legislation

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and Queen Elizabeth II signified her royal assent to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 on 29 November 2016 Its different parts came into force on various dates from 30 December 2016. The Act comprehensively sets out and in limited respects expands the electronic surveillance powers of the British intelligence agencies and police. It also claims to improve the safeguards on the exercise of those powers.

David Anderson, Baron Anderson of Ipswich British barrister and life peer

David William Kinloch Anderson, Baron Anderson of Ipswich, is a British barrister and life peer, who was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation in the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2017. On 8 June 2018 it was announced that he would be introduced to the House of Lords as a cross-bench (non-party) working peer. On the same day he was appointed a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE), for services to national security and civil liberties, in the Queen's 2018 Birthday Honours.

<i>Malone v United Kingdom</i>

Malone v United Kingdom [1984] ECHR 10 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning the rule of law.

In public law, abrogation is the proposing away of a right, power or value, by a public body in delegating power or failing to carry out a responsibility or duty. The abrogation of such a responsibility or duty, unless required by primary legislation would amount to an unconstitutional delegation of power to a foreign government or other sovereign power.

References

  1. 1 2 "Bill stages — Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014". Parliament of the United Kingdom . Retrieved 24 August 2014.
  2. ↑ "Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 - Commencement". The Stationery Office . Retrieved 24 August 2014.
  3. ↑ "Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 - Legislation PDF" (PDF). The Stationery Office . Retrieved 24 August 2014.
  4. 1 2 "Commons passes emergency data laws despite criticism". BBC . Retrieved 24 August 2014.
  5. ↑ "Emergency phone and internet data laws to be passed". BBC . Retrieved 24 August 2014.
  6. 1 2 "David Davis and others -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department". judiciary.gov.uk. 17 July 2015.
  7. ↑ "MPs win surveillance powers legal challenge". BBC. 17 July 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  8. 1 2 3 Davis & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2015] EWHC 2092(Admin) (17 July 2015), High Court (England and Wales)
  9. ↑ The Guardian newspaper: Theresa May unveils surveillance measures in wake of Snowden claims, 4 November 2015
  10. ↑ "Emergency surveillance law faces legal challenge from 2 MPs". BBC News. 4 June 2015.
  11. ↑ Alexander J Martin (17 July 2015). "High Court smacks down 'emergency' UK spy bill as UNLAWFUL". The Register.
  12. ↑ Carly Nyst (17 July 2015). "Finally, the high court puts a brake on snooping on ordinary Britons". The Guardian.
  13. ↑ "Court of Appeal hears government surveillance law case". BBC News. 22 October 2015. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  14. ↑ Proud, Imogen (17 December 2015). "R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p David Davis MP, Tom Watson MP, Peter Brice and Geoffrey Lewis [2015] EWCA Civ 1185". Mockton Chambers.
  15. ↑ "Secretary of State for the Home Department v Davis MP & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 1185 (20 November 2015)".
  16. ↑ C203/15 and C698/15 "JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 21 December 2016 (*) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications — Processing of personal data — Confidentiality of electronic communications — Protection — Directive 2002/58/EC — Articles 5, 6 and 9 and Article 15(1) — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8 and 11 and Article 52(1) — National legislation — Providers of electronic communications services — Obligation relating to the general and indiscriminate retention of traffic and location data — National authorities — Access to data — No prior review by a court or independent administrative authority — Compatibility with EU law".{{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  17. ↑ "Secretary of State for the Home Department v Watson MP & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 70 (30 January 2018)".
  18. ↑ gov.uk: "Collection: Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014", 25 Jul 2014
  19. ↑ Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 - Section 1
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Surveillance law wins cross-party support but critics claim stitch-up". The Guardian . Retrieved 24 August 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.