Judgment Approved by the court for handing down.
Davis & Ors v SSHD
“Communications data has played a significant role in every
Security Service counter-terrorism operation over the last
decade. It has been used as evidence in 95 per cent of all
serious organised crime cases handled by the Crown
Prosecution Service. And it has played a significant role in the
investigation of many of the most serious crimes in recent time,
including the Oxford and Rochdale child grooming cases, the
murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman and the murder of
Rhys Jones. It can prove or disprove alibis, it can identify
associations between potential criminals, and it can tie suspects
and victims to a crime scene.”
16.
Similarly, in his March 2015 Report, the Interception of Communications
Commissioner, Sir Anthony May, explained:
“My inspectors identified that communications data was
frequently relied on to provide both inculpatory and
exculpatory evidence. The communications data acquired
revealed suspects movements and tied them to crime scenes. It
often led to other key evidence being identified or retrieved.
Links to previously unidentified offenders and offences were
revealed. Dangerous offenders were located and offences were
disrupted with the assistance of communications data. Patterns
of communication provided evidence of conspiracy between
suspects. The data highlighted inconsistencies in accounts
given by suspects and corroborated the testimony of victims.
The data determined the last known whereabouts of victims and
persons they had been in contact with. Similarly,
communications data assisted to eliminate key suspects or
highlighted inconsistencies in accounts given by victims.”
EU legislation on data retention
The Data Protection Directive
17.
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October
1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data
and on the free movement of such data (“the Data Protection Directive”) contained
provisions designed to ensure the free movement of personal data between Member
States and to protect individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms, in particular their
right to privacy.
18.
Article 3(2) provided that the Directive did not apply to the processing of personal
data which fell outside the scope of Community law, and in any case to processing
operations concerning public security, defence, State security (including the economic
wellbeing of the State when the processing operation relates to State security matters)
and the activities of the State in areas of criminal law.
19.
Article 13(1) preserved the right of Member States to enact domestic provisions to
restrict the scope of the obligations and rights set out in the Directive where necessary