*/
Plans for judicial oversight of surveillance requests are not as safe as they appear and fail to protect legal professional privilege (LPP), the Bar Council has warned.
A watered down draft Investigatory Powers Bill, published last month, introduces judicial approval of ministerial decisions to permit intelligence agencies to monitor communications.
But Bar Council Chairman, Alistair MacDonald QC, said the ‘double lock’ requirement of judicial and ministerial authorisation is not as secure as it is made out to be.
Ministers, he said, will be able to authorise the interception of communications in ‘urgent cases’, defined as up to five days without authorisation, where judicial approval is not possible.There are likely to be high volumes of such cases, believes MacDonald.
‘Excluding judicial authorisation under any circumstance immediately removes the element of independent oversight,’ he said.
MacDonald added that the Bill fails to protect LPP, leaving it to be dealt with in separate codes of practice to be published next year. ‘If the client, in sensitive cases, knows or suspects that his or her conversations with their lawyer are being overheard by agents of the state, they simply will not be able to be frank with their legal advisors and miscarriages of justice may occur,’ the Bar Chairman said.
‘We know from experience that these codes are little more than guidelines, and we need more than that to protect the important right to consult a lawyer in private. In the absence of any effective measures to make unlawful the targeting of communications between client and lawyer by public authorities, there is no meaningful protection for LPP,’ he added.
Plans for judicial oversight of surveillance requests are not as safe as they appear and fail to protect legal professional privilege (LPP), the Bar Council has warned.
A watered down draft Investigatory Powers Bill, published last month, introduces judicial approval of ministerial decisions to permit intelligence agencies to monitor communications.
But Bar Council Chairman, Alistair MacDonald QC, said the ‘double lock’ requirement of judicial and ministerial authorisation is not as secure as it is made out to be.
Ministers, he said, will be able to authorise the interception of communications in ‘urgent cases’, defined as up to five days without authorisation, where judicial approval is not possible.There are likely to be high volumes of such cases, believes MacDonald.
‘Excluding judicial authorisation under any circumstance immediately removes the element of independent oversight,’ he said.
MacDonald added that the Bill fails to protect LPP, leaving it to be dealt with in separate codes of practice to be published next year. ‘If the client, in sensitive cases, knows or suspects that his or her conversations with their lawyer are being overheard by agents of the state, they simply will not be able to be frank with their legal advisors and miscarriages of justice may occur,’ the Bar Chairman said.
‘We know from experience that these codes are little more than guidelines, and we need more than that to protect the important right to consult a lawyer in private. In the absence of any effective measures to make unlawful the targeting of communications between client and lawyer by public authorities, there is no meaningful protection for LPP,’ he added.
Chair of the Bar Sam Townend KC highlights some of the key achievements at the Bar Council this year
Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management highlights some of the ways you can cut your IHT bill
Rachel Davenport breaks down everything you need to know about AlphaBiolabs’ industry-leading laboratory testing services for legal matters
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management sets out the key steps to your dream property
A centre of excellence for youth justice, the Youth Justice Legal Centre provides specialist training, an advice line and a membership programme
By Kem Kemal of Henry Dannell
Mark Neale, Director General of the Bar Standards Board, offers an update on the Equality Rules consultation
Joanna Hardy-Susskind speaks to those walking away from the criminal Bar
Imposing a professional obligation to act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion is the wrong way to achieve this ambition, says Nick Vineall KC
Tom Cosgrove KC looks at the government’s radical planning reform and the opportunities and challenges ahead for practitioners
By Ashley Friday of AlphaBiolabs
