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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal