Published on 20 September 2021
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 64230/16
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH against the United Kingdom
and 4 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 1 September 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are a human rights NGO; a journalist; a lawyer; a technologist; and an entrepreneur. The NGO is headquartered in New York with major offices in the United Kingdom, and the individual applicants are all resident in the United Kingdom.
The applicants complain under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention about the operation of the regime under section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (“the bulk interception regime”). In a judgment dated 16 May 2016 the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (“IPT”) found that they had standing to complain about the bulk interception regime and directed inquiries into whether their communications had been unlawfully intercepted, stored, accessed or retained. However, the IPT subsequently made no determination in their favour.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Is the regime under section 8(4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 compatible with Article 8 and/or Article 10 of the Convention?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
64230/16
Human Rights Watch v. the United Kingdom
04/11/2016
Human Rights Watch
New York
Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors)
2.
64368/16
Shuttleworth v. the United Kingdom
04/11/2016
Mark Richard SHUTTLEWORTH
1973
Isle of Man
British
Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors)
3.
64741/16
Weatherhead v. the United Kingdom
04/11/2016
Christopher WEATHERHEAD
1990
Canterbury
British
Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors)
4.
65463/16
Ball v. the United Kingdom
04/11/2016
James BALL
1986
London
British
Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors)
5.
65487/16
Robinson v. the United Kingdom
04/11/2016
Jennifer Kate ROBINSON
1981
London
Australian
Mark SCOTT (Bhatt Murphy Solicitors)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy