Support Our Work Mailing list About / Contact
  • Home /
  • News /
  • 2015 /
  • February /
  • UK: Police will need judge’s permission to access journalists’ phone and email records - David Cameron accepts recommendation for judicial oversight of police use of anti-terror powers to snoop on reporters

UK: Police will need judge’s permission to access journalists’ phone and email records - David Cameron accepts recommendation for judicial oversight of police use of anti-terror powers to snoop on reporters

05 February 2015

Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.

"Sir Anthony May, the interception of communications commissioner, said police forces “did not give due consideration to freedom of speech” and Home Office guidelines do not sufficiently protect journalistic sources."

See the article: Police will need judge’s permission to access journalists’ phone and email records - David Cameron accepts recommendation for judicial oversight of police use of anti-terror powers to snoop on reporters (Guardian, link)

See also: Interception of Communications Commissioner's Office: IOCCO inquiry into the use of Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to identify journalistic sources (pdf)

This decision still leaves open the question of the surveillance of communications between lawyers and their clients, doctors and other professionals' guarantee of privacy: see: Draft Code of Practice: Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data: Code of Practice Pursuant to section 71 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Draft for public consultation, 9 December 2014 (55 pages, pdf) which says:

"3.73 However the degree of interference with privacy may be higher where the communications data being sought relates to a person who is a member of a profession that handles privileged or otherwise confidential information (such as a medical doctor, lawyer, journalist, Member of Parliament, or minister of religion). It may also be possible to infer an issue of sensitivity from the fact someone has regular contact with, for example, a lawyer or journalist

3.74 Such situations do not preclude an application being made.." [emphasis added, p31]

Our work is only possible with your support.
Become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.

 Previous article

EU: New research resources available on undercover policing

Next article 

EU: PNR & DATA PROTECTION: Article 29 Working Party on data protection

 

Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.

Report error

Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.

About | Contact | Privacy Policy