PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM DECISION
“The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has carefully considered your clients’
complaints and Human Rights Act claims in the light of all relevant evidence and in
accordance with its normal procedures. The Tribunal has asked me to inform you that
no determination has been made in your favour either on your complaints or your
Human Rights Act claims.
...
For the avoidance of doubt the Tribunal has not been required to consider, and has
not considered, the matters left open in paragraphs 53 and 63 of the Privacy/Greennet
judgment.”
21. The first applicant brought a claim for judicial review1 of the decision
of the IPT so far as it concerned section 5 of the ISA. That litigation is
currently pending before the High Court2 (see paragraphs 32-33 below).
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. The Computer Misuse Act 1990
22. Sections 1 and 3 of the Act make unlawful unauthorised access to
computer material, and unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with
recklessness as to impairing, operation of computers etc. According to the
IPT, an act of CNE would constitute an offence under sections 1 and 3 of
the Act.
23. Section 10 of the Act was amended on 3 May 2015 to expressly
provide that a person acting under a warrant or authorisation granted under
section 5 or 7 respectively of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (see
paragraphs 24-25 below) does not commit an offence.
2. The Intelligence Services Act 1994
24. Section 5 (1) of ISA reads as follows:
“5. Warrants: general.
No entry on or interference with property or with wireless telegraphy shall be
unlawful if it is authorised by a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under this
section.”
25. Section 7 (1) of ISA reads as follows:
“7. Authorisation of acts outside the British Islands.
If apart from this section, a person would be liable in the United Kingdom for any
act done outside the British Islands, he shall not be so liable if the act is one which is
authorised to be done by virtue of an authorisation given by the Secretary of State
under this section.”
Rectified on 4 September 2020: “appealed” was replaced by “brought a claim for judicial
review of”.
2 Rectified on 4 September 2020: “Court of Appeal” was replaced by “High Court”.
1
6