Menu
Wed, 12 June 2024

Newsletter sign-up

Subscribe now
The House Live All
NFB Manifesto: “Supporting Construction to Power Growth” Partner content
Home affairs
Opportunities for future proofing the construction industry – CIOB launches manifesto ahead of general election Partner content
Home affairs
How the UK can unlock the opportunities of the global expansion of offshore wind Partner content
Energy
Education
Home affairs
Press releases

Legal experts hit out at ‘rush job’ Investigatory Powers Bill

Bar Council | Bar Council

3 min read Partner content

Leading figures from the legal community have slammed the Government’s Investigatory Powers Bill, branding it a ‘disappointment,’ that undermines confidentiality.  

Legal experts have criticised claims that the Investigatory Powers Bill contains adequate ‘protections for lawyers’, saying it will allow authorities total access to confidential, legally privileged communications between individuals and their lawyers, even when someone is in a legal dispute with the Government or defending themselves against prosecution.

Commenting on the Bill’s implications, and the short timetable allowed for the passage of the Bill, Chairman of the Bar Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC said:

“The confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their clients is one of the cornerstones on which our criminal justice system is based. Weakening that principle jeopardises the fairness of the trial process.

“Following extensive discussions with the Home Office and the recommendation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee which examined the draft Bill, the Bar Council is disappointed that the Bill introduced to Parliament today does not provide sufficient protection for legal privilege on the face of the Bill.  

“It is vital that this measure is subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that the interests of justice and security are kept in balance. That is why we shall continue to take a close interest in the Bill during its progress through Parliament.”  

Peter Carter QC, Chair of the Bar Council Surveillance and Privacy Working Group, who gave evidence to the joint scrutiny committee for the Bar Council, added:

“The main purpose of this legislation is to give the security services the surveillance powers they need to keep us safe, and that is why today’s Bill is such a disappointment. Giving the security services more powers than are necessary for that purpose will diminish the system of justice, which is the benchmark of any democratic society.

“We have explained in very clear terms to the Government that legal privilege does not apply where lawyer client communications reveal information that could be used to prevent a terror attack, foil a threat to national security, or bring an end to an on-going crime such as a kidnapping or the abuse of a child. Neither does privilege apply where a lawyers is acting illegally. Such communications should of course be subject to surveillance.

“Unfortunately, this Bill ignores the clear distinction between privileged and non-privileged communications and instead gives authorities powers to spy on sensitive, highly confidential communications that have nothing to do with criminality, national security or threats to individuals.

“The Bill undermines the right to a fair trial because barristers will no longer be able to reassure clients that their communications, which the public interest demands should be immune from state intrusion, are in fact private and confidential. It will, for example, allow authorities to listen in on clients and lawyers who are in the middle of a legal dispute against the Government.

“Lawyers give advice on the strength or weakness of their client’s case. That requires clients to trust that what they say is not being overheard by the state or by those to whom the state chooses to pass on such information.

“This Bill is a rush job that will undermine one of our most fundamental rights. We hope that the Government will extend the timetable of the Bill and give full and proper consideration to Bar Council amendments which adequately would protect legal privilege without restricting the work of the security services.”

PoliticsHome Newsletters

Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.

Categories

Home affairs
Associated Organisation