Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014

The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (also known as DRIP or DRIPA) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 17 July 2014, after being introduced on 14 July 2014.^[1][3] The purpose of the legislation is to allow security services to continue to have access to phone and internet records of individuals following a previous repeal of these rights by the Court of Justice of the European Union.^[4] The act was criticised by some Members of Parliament for the speed at which the act was passed through parliament,^[4] by some groups (such as the Open Rights Group and Liberty) as being an infringement of privacy^[5] and by legal scholars who say it does not strike an appropriate balance among security, privacy and freedom of enterprise.^[6]

Following legal action, in July 2015, the High Court issued an order that sections 1 and 2 of the Act were unlawful, and to be disapplied, suspended until 31 March 2016, thereby giving the government a deadline to come up with alternative legislation which is compatible with EU law.^[7][8]

As of 4 November 2015 an investigatory powers parliamentary bill was being drafted providing new surveillance powers, requiring records to be kept by Internet Service Providers tracking use of the internet from the UK, accessible by the police and security services without judicial oversight.^[9]

Overview

The main provisions of the act were:

• To allow the security services through the Secretary of State to retain the powers to require a public telecommunications operator to retain communications data in line with the purposes of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.^[10]
• The creation of a new privacy and civil liberties board to act as an independent watchdog overseeing the security services' use of these powers.^[11]
• To enforce the annual publication of a report of the amount of data intercepted under the regulations^[11]
• To restrict the length of time such data can be held to 12 months^[11]
• To ensure that the relevance of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is reviewed biennially^[11]
• To reduce the number of public bodies that can access the data collected under the legislation^[11]
• To limit the data which can be accessed under the regulations to only data that is relevant^[11]
• To provide for fresh legislation to supersede this legislation in 2016^[11]
• To ensure that such data can no longer be gathered solely for the interest of the UK economic wellbeing^[11]
• To appoint a diplomat to negotiate data transfers of such information with the United States.^[11]

Legal challenge and High Court ruling

On 1 August 2014, the Data Retention Regulations 2014 came into force, completing the framework introduced by the DRIP. They provide that a communications service provider can be required to retain data only when target of a notice of the Secretary of State. In December 2014, in R (on the application of David Davis MP and Tom Watson MP) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Mr Justice Lewis (High Court) granted the Claimants permission to proceed to a substantive hearing, thus agreeing that the DRIP can be challenged by judicial review. As a reaction, the Government proposed using the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill (CTSB) to extend their remit to cover data generated as a result of internet communications.^[6]

On 4 June 2015 a legal challenge against the law was brought to the High Court by two MPs, Labour's Tom Watson and the Conservative David Davis. They claimed that the act was rushed through parliament and was incompatible with the Human Rights Act and the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights.^[12]

On 17 July 2015 the High Court upheld the challenge, finding sections 1 and 2 of the Act to be unlawful.^[13][14] The court issued an order that sections 1 and 2 be disapplied, suspended until 31 March 2016, thereby giving the government a deadline to come up with alternative legislation which is compatible with EU law.^[7]

In October 2015, the Court of Appeal began hearing the Home Secretary's appeal against the ruling.^[15]

See also

• Human Rights Act 1998
• Mass surveillance in the United Kingdom

References