Regulation of intelligence gathering

STOP PRESS: The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 (IP(A)A 2024) received Royal Assent on 25 April 2024. The Act is the first major amendment of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 since it was enacted and seeks to expand the surveillance powers of the UK’s police, intelligence services and government. The Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Act 2024 (Commencement No 1 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2024, SI 2024/1021 brings certain provisions of the IP(A)A 2024 into force on 14 October 2024. This Overview is in the process of being updated to reflect the changes.

Regulation of intelligence gathering

A range of statutory obligations regulate the acquisition, retention, examination and dissemination of private material by public authorities for intelligence purposes. These include:

•
Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016)
•
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000)
•
Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998)
•
Intelligence Services Act 1994 (ISA 1994)
•
Security Service Act 1989 (SSA 1989)
•
Computer Misuse Act 1990 (CMA 1990)
•
Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (WTA 2006)
•
Investigatory

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Public Law News

Supreme Court rules on first Russia sanctions challenge (Shvidler v Foreign Secretary)

Corporate Crime analysis: The court held (in a majority judgment (4:1)) that sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (the Foreign Secretary) on Mr Shvidler, and (in a unanimous judgment) that sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State for Transport (the Transport Secretary) on a yacht (M/Y Phi) owned by Dalston Projects, in the immediate aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, were—despite their acknowledged interference with the appellants’ rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, proportionate and lawful. In a strong dissent, however, Lord Leggatt deprecated the decision of the majority in Mr Shvidler’s case, finding that the sanctions against him, as a UK citizen, were disproportionate and hence unlawful. Of broader application in a public law context, the court departed from the Court of Appeal on the question of the approach to proportionality cases by an appellate court. Written by Kerri McGuigan, senior associate and Liam Lane, associate at Peters & Peters Solicitors LLP.

Speech by Lord Sales on regulatory approaches to AI in public administration

The Supreme Court has published a speech given at Singapore Management University by Lord Sales, analysing the rise of automated decision-making (ADM) in government and the emerging divergence in regulatory approaches to AI worldwide. He contrasts the UK's ‘soft law’ approach using guidelines and frameworks with the EU's comprehensive AI Act, noting the role of data protection legislation and the need to examine the full range of policy options being explored in different jurisdictions. Discussing the court’s role in protecting public law values, Lord Sales observes that as ADM increasingly ‘takes over public functions’ it is inevitable that judicial review claims will increasingly concern AI. He examines how cases like R (Johnson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 778 and Bridges v South Wales Police [2020] EWCA Civ 1058 demonstrate the capacity of judicial review to respond to some of the associated AI risks, highlighting the judiciary’s role in developing doctrine to embed and defend public law values. While technology develops at pace, Lord Sales notes that these underlying values are likely to remain unchanged, with ‘commitment to legality, transparency, accountability, and human dignity’ remaining ‘central to the legitimacy of public administration’, whether ADM is used or not. In conclusion, Lord Sales, emphasises that robust mechanisms to safeguard public law values must be embedded in ADM design and implementation to ensure that automation serves, rather than undermines, good governance and the rule of law.

Discretionary succession policies and the meaning of ‘stepchild’ (Abdelrahman v London Borough of Islington)

Local Government analysis: The appeal in Abdelrahman v The Mayor and Burgesses of The London Borough of Islington concerned whether, in interpreting the authority’s discretionary succession policy, those such as the appellant, who are the child of a deceased tenant’s partner by a former relationship, are included within the meaning of ‘stepchild’. Ms Abdelrahman’s mother was in an intimate relationship with Mr Seales (the secure tenant), but they never married or entered into a civil partnership. The Court of Appeal upheld HHJ Bloom’s first instance decision that ‘stepchild’ meant a child of a person’s spouse or civil partner by previous marriage or civil partnership. On the basis of that interpretation, Ms Abdelrahman fell outside the scope of the policy and was not entitled to succeed. Written by Sarah Salmon and Olivia Davies, barristers at Cornerstone Barristers.

AI in government and public policy—regulatory frameworks, ethical considerations, challenges and trends

Public Law analysis: This article discusses the transformative impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the public sector, highlighting its role in improving administrative practices and policy-making across various domains such as social welfare, law enforcement, healthcare, and transportation. It addresses the legal and ethical challenges posed by AI, including concerns about human rights, privacy, accountability, and environmental impacts. The article examines the evolving regulatory frameworks in the EU and the UK, which aim to manage these challenges through risk-based regulation. It emphasises the need for public sector lawyers to understand these regulations and balance innovation with the protection of fundamental rights and transparency. Written by Erica Stanford, Crypto, digital asset and AI advisor at CMS.