31:
206:
said the ruling "undermines the rule of law and violates the sovereignty of
Parliament". According to Ekins, any judge who deliberately ignored an ouster clause "would warrant removal from office in accordance with the terms of the
256:
246:
279:
464:
399:
Elliott, Mark; Young, Alison L. (2019). "Privacy
International in the Supreme Court: Jurisdiction, the Rule of Law, and Parliamentary Sovereignty".
139:
459:
368:
Webb, Thomas E. (2021). "R (on the application of
Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal UKSC 22, Supreme Court".
189:
146:(IPT). The Tribunal ruled against an application by Privacy International relating to the proper construction of a section of the
389:
185:
119:
41:
181:
247:"What does the Supreme Court's ruling on the Investigatory Powers Tribunal mean for parliamentary sovereignty?"
147:
143:
158:
410:
127:
153:
Privacy
International sought judicial review of the IPT's decision. It lost in both the High Court (
251:
162:
30:
373:
208:
401:
122:. It caused controversy due to the majority's suggestion that courts will not give effect to
322:
52:
R (on the application of
Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others
8:
381:
438:
422:
341:
192:
318:"Once More unto the Breach: R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal"
442:
430:
385:
349:
287:
170:
414:
377:
331:
418:
453:
434:
426:
353:
345:
291:
203:
154:
123:
115:
166:
336:
317:
280:"UK government security decisions can be challenged in court, judges rule"
126:
even when
Parliament's intent is clear, thus undermining the concept of
142:
purported to exclude from challenge or appeal any decision of the
112:
24:
226:
451:
16:2019 Supreme Court of the United Kingdom case
398:
140:Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
29:
465:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom cases
335:
277:
452:
244:
315:
259:from the original on 25 February 2021
232:
367:
120:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
42:Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
13:
361:
14:
476:
382:10.1093/he/9780191926440.003.0056
460:2019 in United Kingdom case law
316:Scott, Paul F. (January 2020).
309:
271:
245:Dawson, Joanna (28 May 2019).
238:
161:) and in the Court of Appeal (
148:Intelligence Services Act 1994
1:
278:Bowcott, Owen (15 May 2019).
214:
198:
144:Investigatory Powers Tribunal
219:
7:
370:Essential Cases: Public Law
176:
10:
481:
411:Cambridge University Press
419:10.1017/S0008197319000813
128:parliamentary sovereignty
100:
95:
72:
57:
47:
37:
28:
23:
252:House of Commons Library
133:
374:Oxford University Press
118:, is a judgment of the
209:Senior Courts Act 1981
402:Cambridge Law Journal
337:10.3366/elr.2020.0605
138:Section 67(8) of the
61:15 May 2019
323:Edinburgh Law Review
155:Sir Brian Leveson P
391:978-0-19-192644-0
108:
107:
472:
446:
395:
372:(4th ed.).
357:
339:
303:
302:
300:
298:
275:
269:
268:
266:
264:
242:
236:
230:
68:
66:
33:
21:
20:
480:
479:
475:
474:
473:
471:
470:
469:
450:
449:
392:
364:
362:Further reading
312:
307:
306:
296:
294:
276:
272:
262:
260:
243:
239:
231:
227:
222:
217:
201:
179:
136:
91:
64:
62:
17:
12:
11:
5:
478:
468:
467:
462:
448:
447:
396:
390:
363:
360:
359:
358:
330:(1): 103–109.
311:
308:
305:
304:
270:
237:
235:, p. 108.
224:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
200:
197:
178:
175:
135:
132:
124:ouster clauses
106:
105:
102:
98:
97:
93:
92:
90:
89:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
70:
69:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
477:
466:
463:
461:
458:
457:
455:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
397:
393:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
366:
365:
355:
351:
347:
343:
338:
333:
329:
325:
324:
319:
314:
313:
293:
289:
285:
281:
274:
258:
254:
253:
248:
241:
234:
229:
225:
212:
210:
205:
204:Richard Ekins
196:
194:
191:
187:
183:
182:Lord Sumption
174:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
151:
149:
145:
141:
131:
129:
125:
121:
117:
114:
113:
104:EWCA Civ 1868
103:
101:Appealed from
99:
94:
87:
84:
81:
78:
77:
75:
71:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
406:
400:
369:
327:
321:
310:Bibliography
295:. Retrieved
284:The Guardian
283:
273:
261:. Retrieved
250:
240:
228:
202:
188:agreed) and
180:
152:
137:
111:
110:
109:
96:Case history
51:
18:
413:: 490–496.
263:3 September
190:Lord Wilson
184:(with whom
454:Categories
233:Scott 2020
215:References
199:Commentary
88:4 All ER 1
82:2 WLR 1219
65:2019-05-15
443:210531385
435:0008-1973
427:1469-2139
354:1364-9809
346:1755-1692
292:0261-3077
220:Citations
193:dissented
186:Lord Reed
159:Leggatt J
73:Citations
257:Archived
177:Judgment
297:15 June
116:UKSC 22
85:HRLR 13
79:UKSC 22
63: (
58:Decided
441:
433:
425:
388:
352:
344:
290:
173:LJJ).
169:, and
439:S2CID
423:eISSN
409:(3).
342:eISSN
171:Floyd
167:Flaux
163:Sales
134:Facts
38:Court
431:ISSN
386:ISBN
350:ISSN
299:2023
288:ISSN
265:2021
157:and
415:doi
378:doi
332:doi
211:".
456::
437:.
429:.
421:.
407:78
405:.
384:.
376:.
348:.
340:.
328:24
326:.
320:.
286:.
282:.
255:.
249:.
195:.
165:,
150:.
130:.
445:.
417::
394:.
380::
356:.
334::
301:.
267:.
67:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
