## Facts

- The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) was established by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) to oversee UK intelligence agencies.
- Section 67(8) of RIPA stated that decisions of the IPT “shall not be subject to appeal or challenged in any court,” seeking to prevent judicial scrutiny of IPT decisions.
- Privacy International challenged whether this ouster clause could lawfully exclude judicial review where the IPT allegedly committed errors of law.
- The High Court examined the precise wording and legal context of section 67(8), as well as the principle that courts are responsible for keeping public bodies within legal limits.
- The matter was later considered and affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether section 67(8) of RIPA validly excluded judicial review of IPT decisions, particularly in cases of legal errors.
2. Whether judicial review could still be exercised over the IPT's errors regarding questions of the limits of its authority (jurisdictional errors).
3. How courts should interpret statutory ouster clauses and balance them against the rule of law and judicial oversight.

## Decision

- The High Court ruled that ouster clauses, such as section 67(8) RIPA, must be narrowly construed to preserve judicial review as a check on public bodies.
- It held that the clause only excluded review for errors made within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, not for errors as to its own legal authority or jurisdiction.
- The Court determined that Parliament, even with clear language, could not fully exclude judicial review of jurisdictional errors made by specialized tribunals like the IPT.
- The Supreme Court, in a subsequent decision ([2019] UKSC 22), upheld this approach, emphasizing the importance of judicial review in maintaining the rule of law.

## Legal Principles

- Ouster clauses are to be interpreted strictly and do not generally bar judicial review of errors relating to the limits of a tribunal's legal authority.
- The rule of law demands that courts maintain oversight of public bodies to ensure legality.
- Parliamentary sovereignty allows Parliament to legislate limits on review, but such limits are read narrowly by courts.
- Precedent from Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission [1969] 2 AC 147 shaped the interpretation of section 67(8) and influenced the approach to ouster clauses.

## Conclusion

The decision in R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal establishes that ouster clauses must be strictly construed and cannot wholly prevent judicial review, especially on jurisdictional questions, thereby preserving the courts' supervisory role over public authorities even in matters involving national security.


R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2017] EWHC 114