“Supreme Court rules Investigatory Powers Tribunal decisions can be judicially reviewed”
Privacy International sought judicial review of IPT decisions concerning the lawfulness of bulk interception regimes operated by GCHQ and other intelligence agencies. The IPT had ruled that historical bulk interception was unlawful but refused to make declarations about it. Privacy International argued the IPT had made errors of law in its approach.
Whether section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ousted the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts to judicially review decisions of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal
The Supreme Court held that IPT decisions were subject to judicial review by the ordinary courts. Section 67(8) did not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and appellate courts to review IPT decisions on grounds including excess of jurisdiction and procedural impropriety.
This decision reinforced the constitutional principle that no body should be entirely immune from judicial oversight, even in sensitive national security contexts. It clarified the relationship between specialist tribunals and the ordinary court system.
You're reading the free summary of R (Privacy International) v IPT. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
R (Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal [2019] UKSC 22, [2019] 2 WLR 1219
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.