Media

A barrister picks up his wig (Photo by Ian Waldie/Getty Images)

  © Ian Waldie/Getty Images

A couple of months ago I raised the issue of whether police in the UK were using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) to obtain information which is legally privileged.

Legal privilege is important. In simple terms it means that your dealings with your lawyer are strictly confidential, both in respect of the content of the advice you are given (“legal professional privilege”) and also anything done to assist you in preparing a claim or a defence (“litigation privilege”). In essence, when information is under legal privilege then no court order can oblige you to disclose it to the court or other party, including the police.

It seemed obvious to me that there must be some possibility that police could be using RIPA to obtain information which would be covered by legal privilege. There are about half a million public authority requests for “communications data” every year (that is, information public authorities can get from a telecoms or internet service provider other than the actual content of your communication). Also it is now known that the Metropolitan Police have used RIPA to obtain details of calls made and received by journalists. So, if the police are using RIPA to circumvent the usual protection given to journalists’ sources, there seemed no reason, in principle, why the police would not use the same means to get information which would otherwise be legally privileged.

But what was lacking was evidence: to say something could be happening is not the same as saying that it is happeningRead more

The UK’s Metropolitan Police obtained the “telecommunications data” of the political editor of the Sun. They did this without his consent, and possibly even without his knowledge. They also did this without any warrant or other court order. And this intrusion has caused a media sensation.

The revelation was buried in the “Operation Alice” report of the Metropolitan Police into the so-called “Plebgate” affair about what was said (and not said) by the then chief whip of the government, Andrew Mitchell, at the gates of Downing Street in September 2012. This incident led to a senior ministerial resignation, and to four police officers losing their jobs with one also being prosecuted. There are accusations and counter-accusations, and an ongoing libel case. The published report set out part of the Metropolitan Police’s own investigation; on whether Mr Mitchell called the police “plebs” the report is inconclusive.

But deep in the report, comprising paragraph 5.120, is this short and, for many, worrying sentence:

The telecommunications data in respect of Tom Newton Dunn was applied for and evidenced.

What the Metropolitan Police appear to have done was to issue a “RIPA request” (under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) to Mr Newton Dunn’s mobile telephone company for “telecommunications data”. This is not the same as obtaining “intercept” evidence of live calls and voicemails – that would need a warrant. Instead the request would have been for the accompanying data which would be held by the telecommunications provider: the relevant numbers and other details of incoming and outgoing calls, their duration, their times — even the geographical location of the mobile telephone when the calls were received or made. As one can imagine, with this amount of data, obtaining an intercept of the actual content of the calls becomes less important. Read more

Yesterday, in response to the sharing on the internet of horrific and sickening footage of the apparent execution of journalist James Foley, the UK’s Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) provided the following statement to news reporters:

The MPS Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) is investigating the contents of the video that was posted online in relation to the alleged murder of James Foley.

We would like to remind the public that viewing, downloading or disseminating extremist material within the UK may constitute an offence under terrorism legislation.

What was eye-catching about this statement was that “viewing” the material could, by itself, be a criminal offence under “terrorism legislation”. By the time the statement was issued, thousands of people had viewed the video. Was the MPS really saying that each UK viewer faced, at least in principle, a conviction under terrorism law for doing so? Read more

An ape takes a selfie: but who owns the copyright in the photograph?

This question is in the news because of a decision contained in the recent Wikimedia Foundation Transparency Report:

A photographer left his camera unattended in a national park in North Sulawesi, Indonesia.

A female crested black macaque monkey got ahold of the camera and took a series of pictures, including some self-portraits.

The pictures were featured in an online newspaper article and eventually posted to Commons.

We received a takedown request from the photographer, claiming that he owned the copyright to the photographs.

We didn’t agree, so we denied the request.

 Read more

A number of people in England are, it seems, now routinely searching bins for discarded food so that they and others can eat.

And if this was not sufficiently concerning, the state appears to be seeking to criminalise these people for doing so. Read more

Lady Justice does not always have her eyes covered: for example, contrary to popular belief, she does not wear a blindfold on top of the Old Bailey.

Sometimes she is depicted by artists as being blindfolded, and sometimes she is not. (Perhaps wisely, those statues and paintings which have Lady Justice blindfolded tend to have her with the sword safely lowered; and whether someone brandishing a sword whilst wearing a blindfold is an appropriate image for any system of justice is a matter of opinion.) But there is no consensus among painters and sculptors as to whether Lady Justice should be wearing a blindfold or not.

There is similar inconsistency in what parts of the justice system we are allowed to see, as members of the public or even as jurors or parties to a claim or prosecution. Some parts of our legal process are open, whilst other aspects are hidden from our view. This is because there is no general principle of open justice in the jurisdiction of England and Wales: it is often a game of pass the blindfold as any court case continues. Read more