Critical Evaluation of R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others

This assignment provides a critical evaluation of the case R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others. It explores the facts of the case, the Supreme Court decision, and the implications for public law. The essay also discusses the impact of separation of powers and the relationship between Parliament and the Supreme Court.

PUBLIC LAW

INTRODUCTION
Public laws are those part of law that has been governing relationship of individuals and
government. Also that relationship between individual has direct concern to the society. Public
law comprises of constitutional law, administrative law and criminal law. Procedural laws are
part of it. In other words this can be said that such laws are very important as they handles public
and various laws related to it. These laws helps in strengthening of relationship between public
and government. Nature of these laws are very wide as they has tendency to deal with public and
has to protect them. Scope of these laws are also very wide because they deal with affairs related
to public and its administration is also handled by them. In this assignment a case law has been
given of R (on the application of Privacy International) (Appellant) v Investigatory Powers
Tribunal and others. Critical evaluation has to be done for it.
MAIN BODY
R (on the application of Privacy International) (Appellant) v Investigatory Powers
Tribunal and others do critically evaluation of its judgment
Facts of the case are proceeding was covered under section 67(8) of the regulation of
Investigatory Power Act 2000 and has effected an outstanding the superior jurisdiction of the
High Court over the decision of Investigatory Power Tribunal. The IPT is an specialist statutory
tribunal of limited jurisdiction has created to determine complains surrounding the exercise of
investigatory powers by, inter alia, the intelligence services. Underlying proceedings arose out of
a preliminary issue law concerning the power of the secretary of the state, under section 5 of
Intelligence Services Act 1994, To issue a warrant that has been authorizing for investigating
over hacking in respect of broad class of property. In this Appellant Privacy International, argued
that the IPT’s interpretation was inconsistent with Convention rights and sough judicial review.
In this case an appeal has been made upon Supreme Court was that.
Whether section 67 (8) RIPA “ousts” the supervisory jurisdiction of High Court to quash an IPT
judgment has for error of law.
Where and in what circumstances parliamentary statutory oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the
High Court over a tribunal of limited statutory jurisdiction

The Supreme Court Decision
In this case it was held that a majority of Supreme Court has allowed Privacy International’s
appeal and the consequence was that IPT was not able to give judicial review by the High Court.
This reversed the decision of the Divisional Court and Court of appeal. Lord Carnwath has give
the judgment for majority. In the first issue hinged upon whether the context and the wording
which demonstrate a clear Parliamentary intention to preclude High court jurisdiction.
Materially affected that outcome. Lord Carnwath outlined a historic development of the High
Court relationship with inferior courts and tribunals. Case of Anisminic to R v Upper Tribunal
has been take into consideration for legal development considering the clauses of the case. Also
it has to be seen that “on non ordinary view” could disturb the consideration of decision as
whether had jurisdiction. In agreement with Lord Lloyd-Jones added that is a “necessary
corollary of the”. The judgment held by the Privacy International may cause a kind of war
between Parliament and the Supreme Court, held that under separation of power doctrine. This
has been explained that noteworthy in light of growing willingness of the Supreme Court to
dilute the parliamentary sovereignty and is considered to be of constitutional importance. The
rest of the judgment says that “ Yet, it is easy to overestimate the radicalism of this judgment. In
form, Lord Carnwath adds little to the Lords’ earlier disregard for Parliamentary intent
in Anisminic. Further, while the substantive implications of this case remain indeterminate,
even ad extremis, the protection of the court’s jurisdiction is unsurprising. Not least is it the duty
of the court to ensure the rule of law presides over Parliament, but equally, the precedent of
Lords Hope and Steyn and Lady Hale in R (Jackson) v Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56 [102],
that “there are some things that even a sovereign parliament at the behest of the Commons may
not do”, suggests there is an remains a long-standing competence of the court to override
Parliament in constitutional matters.”
CONCLUSION
From the above essay it can be concluded that public law are those types of laws that has been
formed by the government in order to protect public and society. In the case also it can be
observed that separation of power can sometime s be prove to be a cause of war for an
organization.

REFRENCES
M. Rusyniuk, 'Features Of Impact Of Public Associations On Public Policy' (2019) 4 Law and
public administration.
Martin Shapiro, 'From Public Law To Public Policy, Or The "Public" In "Public Law"' (2019) 5
PS.
Neil Gunningham, 'Public Choice: The Economic Analysis Of Public Law' (2018) 21 Federal
Law Review.