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/
Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge