In first case of its kind, UK high court rules surveillance law unconstitutional

Controversial surveillance legislation hustled through parliament last summer has been ruled unlawful by the U.K. High Court, which argued that the vague terms and descriptions of powers in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) renders the act incompatible with human rights under European law. DRIPA, one in a series of laws supporting controversial surveillance powers passed by successive U.K. governments, establishes the principle by which anti-terrorism measures and national security priorities take precedence over human rights considerations. However, the judgment rules that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights must take precedence, and in doing so requires the U.K. government to undo its own act of parliament — a significant precedent by a British court.

Controversial surveillance legislation hustled through parliament last summer has been ruled unlawful by the U.K. High Court, which argued that the vague terms and descriptions of powers in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) renders the act incompatible with human rights under European law.

In a 44-page ruling, Lord Justice David Bean and Mr. Justice Andrew Collins criticized the lack of clarity and detail in spelling out the terms and conditions under which communications data can be intercepted by police and intelligence agencies, declaring the act “incompatible with the British public’s right to respect for private life and communications and to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.”

It is a decision that must have caused howling with both joy and indignation from both sides of the House of Commons, as the legal action that led to this ruling was a cross-party effort by Conservative MP David Davis and Labor MP Tom Watson. The judgment makes for interesting and instructive reading, providing as it does an overview of the fissures emerging between how national legislatures, led by the United Kingdom, regard their relationship to the European Union’s institutions.

Precedence of international law
DRIPA, one in a series of laws supporting controversial surveillance powers passed by successive U.K. governments, establishes the principle by which anti-terrorism measures and national security priorities take precedence over human rights considerations. However, the judgment rules that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights must take precedence, and in doing so requires the U.K. government to undo its own act of parliament — a significant precedent by a British court.

David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, comments that this ruling confirms the already well-established supremacy of EU over national law. But it also underscores the U.K.’s truculence in complying with this principle compared to other European nations.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20150724-in-first-case-of-its-kind-uk-high-court-rules-surveillance-law-unconstitutional