DRIPA surveillance act illegal says high court [UPDATED]

Triumph for MPs Tom Watson and David Davis as court says surveillance act is not compatible with EU law and must be replaced. Government to appeal

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA) 2014 is inconsistent with parts of the EU charter of fundamental rights, the high court has ruled.

The data retention powers in DRIPA, which became law in 2014 having been fast-tracked through parliament, allows the security agencies and other public bodies to collect phone and internet data. However, the high court has ruled that it contravenes articles seven and eight of the EU legislation. These chapters are concerned with respect for private and family life and protection of personal data.

The legal challenge was brought by Conservative MP David Davis and Labour's Tom Watson and was supported by human rights group Liberty. The MPs argued that the legislation was rushed and that insufficient time had been given to parliamentary debate before it was passed.

DRIPA will remain in force until March 2016, after which it must be replaced with fresh legislation.

Commenting on the ruling Davis told the Guardian: "What this means is that access by the police and other agencies to everyone's data is too easy. It can can range from a politician giving permission [to intercept communications] to anyone in the next office. That's against the law and it's not either in the interests of privacy or security. The government gave parliament one day to pass this legislation. This court has given the government nine months to sort it out."

It presents no risk to national security, he added, because the government has plenty of time to work on DRIPA's replacement.

Watson said: "Good governance is about allowing the legislature the room to make law. In this case it didn't happen. Good opposition is about holding governments to account and that didn't happen either."

Liberty added that the legislation has allowed overreach by the agencies and that safeguards were extremely lax.

"It catches the communications of everyone in the UK including the emails, calls, texts and web activity of MPs, journalists, lawyers, doctors and other communications that may be confidential or privileged," a spokesperson said.

The government has indicated that it will appeal

Security Minister John Hayes told the BBC: "We disagree absolutely with this judgment and will seek an appeal. Communications data is not just crucial in the investigation of serious crime. It is also a fundamental part of investigating other crimes which still have a severe impact, such as stalking and harassment, as well as locating missing people, including vulnerable people who have threatened to commit suicide.

"The effect of this judgment would be that, in certain cases, communications data that could potentially save lives would only be available to the police and other law enforcement if a communications company had decided to retain it for commercial reasons. We believe that is wrong."

Update: the comment below from law fim Pillsbury came in after the story had been published.

"Post Snowden, 'Big Brother' worries and concerns relating to how major web players are looking at, using and sharing people's data, lawmakers have been grappling with the sometimes conflicting demands of law enforcement wanting easier access to data and individuals who are concerned about "snooping creep", said Rafi Azim-Khan, head of data privacy, Europe at international law firm Pillsbury.

"The EU is still in discussion/disagreement with the US about international transfers to the US generally (including concerns over Safe Harbor) and what appropriate safeguards should look like and more specifically how data may or may not be shared with US authorities.

"Adding to that issue we have an inherent friction between rights in the EU e.g. the right to privacy and respect for one's private life and demands from police and security services who say they need further access to help prevent attacks or criminal behaviour.

"The fact the UK's attempt to toughen up and expand government's ability to look at citizen's data has just been shot down by the courts is not actually surprising given the tightrope that is being walked.

"Amended laws will have to better reflect the existing EU rights and need for better justification and controls before private data can be accessed. We await the government's response with interest," Azim-Khan concluded.