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.

Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding.
Speed up your revision with us now👇

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, 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
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

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

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

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

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

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

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

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

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

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

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    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 Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

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

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

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

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

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

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

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

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

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