Snoopers’ charter: lawyers fight for clients’ rights to privacy

Lawyers and professional bodies across the legal profession have united in opposition to the government’s Investigatory Powers Bill – also known widely as the snoopers’ charter – which will put every person in the United Kingdom under surveillance.

The Investigatory Powers Bill will force all internet service providers (ISPs) to store their customers’ “internet connection records”, a vague term which the government has so far neglected to define or clarify further. It will also allow intelligence agencies to hack the phones, computers and other devices of citizens without needing the permission of a judge. The government has said the measures are needed to combat terrorism, but many others including lawyers, tech firms and civil liberties advocates have warned that the British public is sleepwalking into an era of Orwellian mass surveillance. Lawyers have said that the powers will breach legal professional privilege, which is fundamental to justice, while journalists have argued that their ability to hold the powerful to account will be neutralised as a result of confidential sources no longer being protected. The powers could also undermine the democratic and legal work of organisations such as trade unions. Meanwhile NGOs such as Amnesty International have said that the snoopers’ charter would violate the human rights of every person in the United Kingdom.

Bodies including the Law Society and the Bar Council have been united in their condemnation of the lack of safeguards in the proposals, as well as the speed with which they are being rushed into law. As the Law Society Gazette reports, a central criticism is the weakness of the proposed test that legal privilege may be overridden in “exceptional and compelling circumstances” – vague terminology which could be used to justify surveillance in all manner of situations. The bodies have put forward a series of proposed amendments, drafted by the Bar Council, which would set a higher threshold for permitting surveillance that is set in primary legislation, rather than codes of practice which can be changed without being subjected to parliament. However, it is understood that the government’s rushing to push the legislation through and its majority on the committee overseeing the proposals will make amendments difficult.

Chantal-Aimée Doerries, chairman of the Bar, said: “Before surveillance of lawyer-client communications is authorised, there must be compelling evidence that those communications are being used for a criminal purpose. A lesser standard, such as ‘suspicion’, would not be good enough.”

Robert Bourns, vice president of the Law Society, said: “It is not something that is owned by solicitors. Legal professional privilege plays a crucial role in the administration of justice.”