Your Cart

R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019]

R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others [2019] UKSC 22 is a significant decision in UK constitutional and administrative law, especially concerning the extent to which the jurisdiction of the High Court can be excluded by statute.

The background to the appeal involves the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), which is a specialist tribunal established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to oversee the conduct of various UK intelligence services. The central legal issue arose from the IPT's interpretation of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 regarding the scope of thematic warrants, and whether its decisions, particularly errors of law, are immune from judicial review due to a statutory provision in RIPA.

The Supreme Court's decision allowed the appeal by a majority, holding that Section 67(8) of RIPA does not exclude the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over errors of law made by the IPT. The judgment by Lord Carnwath emphasised the principle that legal determinations by any body, including the IPT, must be valid and not vitiated by errors of law to be beyond judicial review. By extension, decisions of public bodies that are made as a result of an error of law cannot be excluded from judicial review, even when there are ouster clauses that clearly reflect the intention of Parliament. This interpretation is supported by historical legal precedents that consistently limit statutory exclusions of judicial oversight unless explicitly stated by Parliament.

Lord Carnwath's judgment was buttressed by references to the Anisminic case, where it was established that erroneous decisions that are legally invalid are no decisions at all. This case illustrates the delicate balance between the powers conferred on tribunals and the overarching supervisory role of the judiciary, affirming that not even Parliament's express intentions can completely oust judicial review of administrative decisions on matters of law.

Dissenting opinions, such as those from Lord Sumption and Lord Wilson, argued that Section 67(8) should be read as excluding High Court jurisdiction over IPT decisions on substantive merits, not just procedural or jurisdictional errors. Their arguments reflected a broader interpretation of legislative intent and the judicial character of the IPT, suggesting that the IPT’s decisions should stand unless they fall outside the reasonable bounds of its jurisdiction.

Moreover, this case also touched upon the broader constitutional question of whether and how Parliament can limit the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts. This discussion is pivotal in understanding the separation of powers and the checks and balances essential to the UK’s legal framework. The majority’s view reinforces the principle that such limitations must be clear and unequivocal, and even then, they are interpreted narrowly to preserve judicial oversight over administrative actions.

This decision not only impacts the functioning of the IPT but also sets a precedent regarding the extent to which statutory bodies can be insulated from judicial review, highlighting the fundamental role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rule of law against potentially expansive interpretations of statutory powers.

Check out our high-performance Public Law notes now.

Subscribe to UOL Case Bank for more exclusive content and case summaries.

Trusted by thousands of law students worldwide

Where are our students from?

Yale University

Council of Europe

Baker Mckenzie 

University of Chicago

Columbia University

New York University

University of Michigan 


University College London (UCL)

London School of Economics (LSE)

King’s College London (KCL)

University of London

University of Manchester

University of Zurich

University of York

Brandeis University

University of Exeter

University of Sheffield

Boston University

University of Washington

University of Leeds

University of Law

Royal Holloway, University of London 

Birkbeck, University of London

SOAS, University of London

University of Kent

University of Hull

Queen’s University Belfast

Toronto Metropolitan University

Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

University of Buckingham

Your perfect companion for open-book and closed-book exams

Diagrams and Charts

Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

Clear and Succinct Definitions

Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

Statutory Provisions

Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

Case Summaries

We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

Rules and Exceptions

Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.


Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

Case Law

Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

Law Essay Guide

You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

Problem Question Guide

We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

Structured Explanations

Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

Legal Research

You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.


All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.