Security and intelligence services must obtain “prior independent authorization” to obtain communications data from people from telecommunications providers, a civil rights campaign group said, after winning a lawsuit.
Liberty praised a “historic victory” and said two judges ruled that it was illegal for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to obtain communications data from people from telecommunications providers without prior independent authorization during criminal investigations.
Judge Singh and Judge Holgate handed down their verdict on Friday after considering Liberty’s challenge at a high court hearing in London. The campaign group initiated legal action against the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the litigation the last stage of a broader challenge to the provisions of the Investigation Powers Act of 2016.
Liberty lawyer Megan Goulding said: “This trial is an important victory in the fight against mass surveillance. The court has accepted that it is too easy for security services to have our data. From now on, when the crime is being investigated, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will need to obtain an independent authorization before they can access our communications data. “
A Liberty spokesman said the independent authorization would likely come from a judge or the Communications Data Authorization Office.
In their ruling, the judges explained how Liberty argued that part of the Investigative Powers Act did not comply with a prior independent authorization requirement for access to communications data.
Sign up for First Edition, our free daily newsletter, every weekday morning at 7:00 BST
Lawyers representing the ministers questioned Liberty’s arguments, but the judges ruled in favor of the complaint, stating that their decision would mean that the security services would operate with the same requirements as the police.
“When security and intelligence agencies act for an ordinary criminal purpose, we cannot see any logical or practical reason why they should not be subject to the same legal regime as the police,” the judges said.
“The mere fact that they generally operate in the field of national security is not enough for this purpose. It is the particular function in question that is relevant. “
They added: “The claimant is successful in this particular reason for challenge.”