THE IMPACT OF THE DECISIONS AND PRINCIPLES OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ON THE REGULATION OF THE INSTITUTE OF SPECIAL EVIDENTIARY ACTIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE INTERCEPTION OF COMMUNICATIONS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25234/pv/16994Keywords:
special evidentiary actions, ECtHR, ECHR, right to protection of private and family life, RIPA, IPAAbstract
In the United Kingdom, the regulatory mechanism for intercepting communications has undergone substantial changes in the last few decades. Until the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in the Malone case (1984), in which it found a violation of the right to protection of private and family life pursuant to Art. 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (ECHR), the United Kingdom did not have a concise legislative framework governing the interception of communications. Legislative frameworks governing the subject matter have also been changed by the standards set by the practice of the ECtHR. The implementation of the ECHR into the British legal system has imposed higher privacy protection standards as guaranteed by Art. 8 ECHR, in an environment where the common law approach that “the police can do whatever they want as long as it is not prohibited by law” was no longer sustainable.
The specific feature of the legislative regulation of special evidentiary actions in the United Kingdom is manifested, for some special evidentiary actions, through the absence of judicial control, at least in the phase of issuing and extending orders for their implementation. Today, the area in question is governed by a special Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA), and related Codes of Practice, however not by the Criminal Procedure Code, as is the case in the countries with a continental legal tradition.
In this paper, the author analyses the legislative changes that preceded the enactment of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, as well as the new Investigatory Powers Act 2016 that be described as the biggest reform of British interception regulation, as it has, for the first time in the UK, incorporated a judicial element for the power to interception. In this context, the question arises as to whether recent legislative changes meet the standards as established by the ECtHR. Consequently, conclusions are presented concerning the revised concept of the subject matter.
References
Abiakam C, Battistoni C, Calabrese V, Caravella R, Giuliano D, Lucantoni G, La disciplina delle intercettazioni, Tra presupposti di legittimità, divieti d'uso e distruzione, Laboratorio didattico di procedura penale. Canale A–L, 2012–2013.
Akdeniz Y, Taylor N i Walker C, 'Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000: Bigbrother.gov.uk: State Surveillance in the Age of Information and Rights' (2001) Criminal Law Review 73
Al-Rawashdeh S, Khalaileh Y, 'Interception of Communications in the UK Law: Developments and Relativity to the ECHR Jurisprudence' (2020) 1
Amos M, 'The Value of the European Court of Human Rights to the United Kingdom' (2017) 28(3) European Journal of International Law 763
Anderson D, A Question of Trust: Report of the Investigatory Powers Review (London, TSO, 2015)
Anderson D, 'The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 – an exercise in democracy' (2016) Independent reviewer of terrorism Legislation (3 December 2016)
Andrew C, Defend the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5 (Knopf, 2009)
Ashworth A, 'Human Rights: Secret Surveillance under Powers in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000' (2010) Criminal Law Review
Ashworth A i Redmayne M, The Criminal Process (Oxford, 2010)
Bachmaier Winter L, 'Telephone tapping in the Spanish Criminal Procedure: An Analysis from the European Court of Human Right’s Perspective' (2007) 2 Rev. Jura 7
Barnum DG, 'Judicial oversight of interception of communications in the United Kingdom: an historical and comparative analysis' (2016) 43(2) Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 237
Boratyńska KT, 'Podsłuch telefoniczny w Wielkiej Brytanii na podstawie „Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000“' (2003) 48/9–10(549–550) Palestra 171
Budjakoski S i Todorovska N, 'Use vs. Abuse of Special Investigative Measures in Detecting Severe Forms of Crime in Republic of Macedonia' (2014) European Scientific Journal 347
Bygrave LA, 'Data Protection Pursuant to the Right of Privacy in Human Rights Treaties' (1998) 6(3) International Journal of Law and Information Technology 247
Cameron I, 'Telephone Tapping and the Interception of Communications Act 1985' (1986) 37(2) Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 126
Chesterman S, '„Ordinary Citizens“ or a License to Kill? The Turn to Law in Regulating Britain's Intelligence Services' (2010) 29(1) Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal 1
Colvin M, Under Surveillance: Convert Policing and Human Rights Standards (London: Justice, 1998)
Donohue LK, 'Anglo-American Privacy and Surveillance' (2006) 96(3) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1059
Donohue LK, 'The Perilous Dialogue' (2009) 97(2) California Law Review 357
Esen R, 'Intercepting communications „in accordance with the law', (2012) 76(2) Journal of Criminal Law 164
Fenwick H, Civil Liberties and Human Rights (Routledge-Cavendish, Fourth Edition, 2007)
Fenwick H, Civil Rights: New Labour, Freedom and the Human Rights Act (Harlow Longman, 2000)
Georgieva I, 'The Right to Privacy under Fire – Foreign Surveillance under the NSA and the GCHQ and Its Compatibility with Art. 17 ICCPR and Art. 8 ECHR' (2015) 31(80) Utrecht Journal of International and European 104
Goodman T, 'The Investigatory Powers Act 2016: a victory for democracy and the rule of law?' (2018) 5 The Bristol Law Review 2
Hale-Ross S, The UK’s Legal Response to Terrorist Communication in the 21st Century: Striking the right balance between individual privacy and collective security in the digital age (Liverpool John Moores University, 2017)
Hirst P, 'Mass surveillance in the age of terror: bulk powers in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.' (2019) 4 European Human Rights Law Review 403
Howse T, 'The English and Welsh system', U: Ligeti K (eds), Toward a Prosecutor for the European Union (Volume 1, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, 2013) 133
Hörnle J, 'How to control interception-does the UK strike the right balance?' (2010) 26(6) Computer Law & Security Review 649
Karemba B, 'The Investigatory Powers Bill: Introducing Judicial Authorisation of Surveillance Warrants in the United Kingdom – Putting the ‘Double-Lock’ in Focus (Part I)' (2016) UK Constitutional Law Association (22. ožujka 2016.)
Karemba B, 'The Investigatory Powers Bill: Putting the Investigatory Powers Commissioner in Focus (Part II)' (2016) UK Constitutional Law Association (15. travnja 2016.)
Kosta E, 'The Retention of Communications Data in Europe and the UK' U: Edwards L Law, Policy and the Internet (Hart Publishing, 2018) 193
Krstić I i Marinković T, Evropsko pravo ljudskih prava (Savet Evrope, Beograd, 2016)
Leigh I, 'A Tappers’ Charter?' (1986) 1 Public Law 8
Lloyd IJ, 'The Interception of Communications Act 1985' (1986) 49(1) Modern Law Review 86
Loftus B, Goold B i Macgiollabhui S, 'Covert policing and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000' (2010) 3 Archbold Review 3
Loftus B i Goold B, 'Covert surveillance and the invisibilities of policing' (2012) 12(3) Criminology & Criminal Justice 275
Loideain NN, 'The Approach of the European Court of Human Rights to the Interception of Communications' (2020) Oxford Data Protection & Privacy Law Series 30
Lustgarten L i Leigh I, In From the Cold: National Security and Parliamentary Democracy, (Oxford University Press, 1994)
Maguire M i John T, 'Covert and Deceptive Policing in England and Wales: Issues in Regulation and Practice' (1996) 4(1) European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 316
May T, 'Home Secretary: Publication of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill' (2015) Home Office (4 November 2015)
McIntyre TJ i O’Donnell I, 'Criminals, Data Protection, and the Right to a Second Chance' (2017) 58(27) The Irish Jurist 27
Murphy MH, 'Transparency and surveillance: assessing the approach of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal u Liberty & Others' (2016) Sweet & Maxwell 1
Murphy CC i Simonsen N, 'It’s time to overhaul the Investigatory Powers Bill' (2016) UK Human Rights Blog (11 February 2016)
Omejec J, Konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda u praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava, Strasbourški acquis (Drugo dopunjeno izdanje. Novi informator. Zagreb, 2014)
Parson C, 'Beyond Privacy: Articulating the Broader Harms of Pervasive Mass Surveillance' (2015) 3(3) Media and Communication 1
Scott PF, 'Hybrid institutions in the national security constitution: the case of the Commissioners' (2019) 39(3) Legal Studies 432
Spencer JR., 'Telephone-Tap Evidence and Administrative Detention in the United Kingdom' U: Wade M i Maljevic A (ed), A War on Terror? (Springer 2010) 373
Starmer K, Strange M i Whitaker Q, Criminal Justice, Police Powers and Human Rights (Blackstone Press, London, 2001)
Taylor N, 'State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy' (2002) 1(1) Surveillance & Society 66
Tréguer F, 'Intelligence Reform and the Snowden Paradox: The Case of France' (2017) 5(1) Media and Communication 17
Uglow S, 'Covert Surveillance and the European Convention on Human Rights' (1999) 24(2) Criminal Law Review 287
Vitkauskas D, The Role of a Security Intelligence Service in a Democracy (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Democratic Institutions Fellowships Programme, 1997–1999)
White M, 'Protection by Judicial Oversight, or an Oversight in Protection?' (2017) 2(1) Journal of Information Rights, Policy and Practice 1
White, Matthew, The threat to the UK’s independent and impartial surveillance oversight comes not just from the outside, but from within, (2019) 5 European Human Rights Law Review 512
Woods L, 'The Investigatory Powers Act 2016' (2020) 1 EDPL 103
Zellick G, 'Government Beyond Law' (1985) Public Law 283
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Nevena Aljinović
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright on the papers published in the Journal, but grant the right of first publication to the Journal. Papers accepted for publication or already published in Pravni vjesnik of the Faculty of Law in Osijek may be published by the author(s) in other publications only with proper notice of its previous publication in Pravni vjesnik.
