National Council for Civil Liberties, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 926
Connor Palmer & Ors v National Crime Agency
20 September 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 1095
Court of Appeal
The police used a warrant to get encrypted phone messages from criminals. The criminals argued the police should have gotten a different kind of warrant. The court said the warrant used was fine and threw out the case.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) decision concerning the application of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA) to Operation Venetic.
- •Operation Venetic involved the NCA accessing EncroChat communications intercepted by French and Dutch authorities.
- •The NCA obtained a targeted equipment interference warrant (TEI) to access stored data from EncroChat devices.
- •Appellants challenged the legality of the TEI warrant based on alleged breaches of sections 9 and 10 of the IPA.
- •The IPT held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the legality of the European Investigation Order (EIO) used to obtain the data and that neither a targeted interception warrant (TI) nor a bulk equipment interference warrant was required.
Legal Principles
Right of appeal on a point of law from IPT determinations to the Court of Appeal (CA). Leave of the IPT or CA is required unless an important point of principle or practice is raised, or another compelling reason exists.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), section 67A(1), (6)(b), (7)
Definition of 'interception' under the IPA, including the interception of stored communications.
IPA, section 4
Definition of 'lawful authority' for interception under the IPA, including circumstances where interception is lawful under a TEI.
IPA, section 6
Restrictions on requesting interception by overseas authorities (section 9) and requesting assistance under mutual assistance agreements (section 10) of the IPA.
IPA, sections 9 & 10
Provisions for TEIs under Part 5 of the IPA, including the purpose of obtaining communications, equipment data, and other information.
IPA, Part 5, section 99
Admissibility of evidence obtained through lawful interception, as determined by section 56 of the IPA and Schedule 3.
IPA, section 56, Schedule 3
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
The Court of Appeal upheld the IPT's decision, finding no arguable points of law raised by the appellants. The court agreed with the IPT's interpretation of sections 9 and 10 of the IPA, finding that a TI warrant was not required and that the TEI was obtained for a lawful purpose. The Court relied heavily on the reasoning in *R v A, B, D and C* [2021] EWCA (Crim) 128.
Similar Cases
Christine Lee v Security Service
[2023] UKIPTrib 8
R (on the application of VIP Communications Ltd (In Liquidation)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2023] UKSC 10
QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2022] EWCA Civ 1541
Diogo Santos-Coelho, R (on the application of) v Carlisle Magistrates Court & Anor
[2024] EWHC 875 (Admin)