'R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal': CPL Discussion - Mark Elliott and Alison Young

Duration: 58 mins 30 secs

Share this media item:

Embed this media item:

<iframe width="_width_" height="_height_" src="https://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/3103896/embed" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Choose size:

About this item

Available Formats

About this item

'R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal': CPL Discussion - Mark Elliott and Alison Young's image

Description:	A discussion held at the University of Cambridge on 18 November 2019, with Sir Patrick Elias, Professor Mark Elliott, and Professor Alison Young. The event was hosted by the Centre for Public Law. In R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court, by 4 judgments to 3, concluded that a clause removing judicial review of the court over decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), including those as to whether the IPT had jurisdiction, could not remove judicial review by the court for legal errors made by the IPT when determining its jurisdiction. The legislation could be interpreted so as not to remove review over purported decisions as to whether the IPT had jurisdiction – in other words those decisions tainted by a legal error. The individual judgments provide an array of arguments which have an impact on how courts interpret ouster clauses and legislation more generally, the foundations of judicial review, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. This lecture explains the judgments and evaluates their implications. For more information see: https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/

Description:

A discussion held at the University of Cambridge on 18 November 2019, with Sir Patrick Elias, Professor Mark Elliott, and Professor Alison Young. The event was hosted by the Centre for Public Law.

In R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, the Supreme Court, by 4 judgments to 3, concluded that a clause removing judicial review of the court over decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT), including those as to whether the IPT had jurisdiction, could not remove judicial review by the court for legal errors made by the IPT when determining its jurisdiction. The legislation could be interpreted so as not to remove review over purported decisions as to whether the IPT had jurisdiction – in other words those decisions tainted by a legal error. The individual judgments provide an array of arguments which have an impact on how courts interpret ouster clauses and legislation more generally, the foundations of judicial review, parliamentary sovereignty and the rule of law. This lecture explains the judgments and evaluates their implications.

For more information see: https://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/


Created:	2019-11-20 09:23
Collection:	Cambridge Law: Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law MOVED
Publisher:	University of Cambridge
Copyright:	Mr D.J. Bates
Language:	eng (English)
Keywords:	Public Law; CPL; Judicial Review; Ouster Clauses; Privacy International; Statutory Interpretation; Parliamentary Intention;

Available Formats

Format	Quality	Bitrate	Size
MPEG-4 Video	1280x720	2.98 Mbits/sec	1.28 GB	View	Download
MPEG-4 Video	640x360	1.94 Mbits/sec	851.27 MB	View	Download
WebM	1280x720	2.28 Mbits/sec	.98 GB	View	Download
WebM	640x360	666.61 kbits/sec	285.70 MB	View	Download
iPod Video	480x270	520.41 kbits/sec	222.98 MB	View	Download
MP3	44100 Hz	249.73 kbits/sec	107.12 MB	Listen	Download
MP3	44100 Hz	62.22 kbits/sec	26.78 MB	Listen	Download
Auto *	(Allows browser to choose a format it supports)