Share it

On appeal from: [2017] EWCA Civ 1868.

Inter alia, the Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, s 67(8) did not “oust” the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a decision of the IPT for error of law. Following authority, it was clear that the drafter of s 67(8) would  have had no doubt that a determination vitiated by any error of law, jurisdictional or not, was to be treated as no determination at all, and so could not be ousted. The plain words of the subsection must yield to the principle that such a clause will not protect a decision that is legally invalid, as there is a common law presumption against ousting the High Court’s jurisdiction.

Lord Sumption dissenting felt that the rule of law was sufficiently vindicated by the judicial character of the IPT and it does not require a right of appeal from the decisions of a judicial body of this kind. Lord Wilson’s dissent centred on the precise wording of s 67(8).

For judgment, please download: [2019] UKSC 22
For Court’s Press Summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court Website (3 Dec 2018 morning session) (3 Dec 2018 afternoon session) (4 Dec 2018 morning session) (4 Dec 2018 afternoon session)