UK security services must seek approval for access to telecommunications data, judges say | United Kingdom security and the fight against terrorism

Security and intelligence services must obtain “prior independent permission” to obtain people’s communications data from telecommunications providers, a civil rights campaign group said after winning a challenge in a higher court.

Liberty hailed the “remarkable victory” and said two judges ruled that it was illegal for MI5, MI6 and GCHQ to receive individuals’ communications data from telecommunications providers without prior independent authorization during criminal investigations.

Lord Judge Singh and Judge Holgate delivered their ruling on Friday after hearing Liberty’s challenge at a hearing in the Supreme Court in London. The campaign group has taken legal action against the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the trial being the latest stage in a broader challenge to the provisions of the 2016 Investigative Powers Act.

Liberty’s lawyer Megan Golding said: “This decision is a great victory in the fight against mass surveillance. The court agreed that it was too easy for the security services to obtain our data. From now on, when investigating crimes, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ will need to obtain independent permission before they can access our communications data.

A Liberty spokesman said the independent authorization was likely to come from a judge or the Communications Authority.

In their ruling, the judges explained how Liberty argued that part of the Investigative Powers Act did not meet the requirement for prior independent permission to access communications data.

Sign up for First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BST

Lawyers representing ministers challenged Liberty’s arguments, but judges ruled in favor of the appeal, saying their decision would mean security services operating under the same requirements as the police.

“When security and intelligence agencies act with a simple criminal purpose, we cannot see any logical or practical reason why they are not subject to the same legal regime as the police,” the judges said.

“The mere fact that they operate in the field of national security in general cannot be sufficient for this purpose. The specific function is relevant.

They added: “The applicant succeeds on this particular ground of challenge.”