Search for: "State v. Ripa"
Results 1 - 20
of 64
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Sep 2018, 3:48 am
But today it came back to life, with the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Big Brother Watch and others v UK. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:58 pm
In Lord Carnwath’s view, the provision in s.67(8) RIPA for a route of appeal to the Secretary of State did not add anything, given that that power had not been exercised and was ultimately an executive power, so did not support the argument that the courts should not have ultimate control [104]. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 9:12 am
But today it came back to life, with the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Big Brother Watch and others v UK. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 6:00 am
Section 1 of RIPA prohibits the unlawful interception of communication in the course of transmission unless authorized by a Section 5 warrant, which must be approved by the secretary of state. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 4:50 am
It has been criticised almost from birth:"We have found RIPA to be a particularly puzzling statute" (R v W, Court of Appeal, 2003)"longer and even more perplexing" than the "short but difficult" Interception of Communications Act 1985. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 4:50 am
It has been criticised almost from birth:"We have found RIPA to be a particularly puzzling statute" (R v W, Court of Appeal, 2003)"longer and even more perplexing" than the "short but difficult" Interception of Communications Act 1985. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 4:50 am
It has been criticised almost from birth:"We have found RIPA to be a particularly puzzling statute" (R v W, Court of Appeal, 2003)"longer and even more perplexing" than the "short but difficult" Interception of Communications Act 1985. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 4:02 am
However, to the extent the plaintiff seeks an award of treble damages in the context of the legal malpractice cause of action, it fails to state a cause of action pursuant to Judiciary Law § 487 (see Pszeniczny v Horn, 193 AD3d 1091; Gorbatov v Tsirelman, 155 AD3d 836, 840). [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 4:50 am
That should become clearer after the outcome of Liberty’s appeal to the Court of Appeal in its judicial review of the Act and various pending references to the CJEU.Meanwhile the recent Strasbourg judgment in Big Brother Watch v UK (yet to be made final, pending possible referral to the Grand Chamber) has exposed a separate set of flaws in the IP Act’s predecessor legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). [read post]
23 May 2019, 4:26 am
In Lord Carnwath’s view, the provision in s.67(8) RIPA for a route of appeal to the Secretary of State did not add anything, given that that power had not been exercised and was ultimately an executive power, so did not support the argument that the courts should not have ultimate control [104]. [read post]
25 Oct 2016, 4:04 pm
To come back to the IPT, it applies the rulings in the judgement by the European Court of Human Right in Weber & Saravia v Germany [2008] and Kennedy v United Kingdom [2011] to solve issues 2 and 3 (Mention is also made of R E v United Kingdom [2016] and Szabo & Vissy v Hungary). [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:05 am
Lord Justice Sales also noted that at the relevant time there was no right of appeal from the IPT under RIPA 2000 but made provision for the Secretary of State by order to provide otherwise. [11]. [read post]
7 Jun 2021, 6:55 am
The Grand Chamber found that the regime under RIPA was deficient in permitting bulk interception to be authorized by the Secretary of State rather than an independent body. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 7:28 am
The case is called, perhaps inevitably, Big Brother Watch and Others v. [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 1:29 am
”John Thorpe MP put the State firmly ahead of the individual:“… In my view the State is in great danger, and no power which would tend to protect it should be withheld from the Government. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 11:15 am
” Ripa v. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 2:00 pm
The Secretary of State has discretion to insist on the limits being adhered to but need not. [read post]
13 Mar 2011, 4:53 am
It is right to state that some 18 months later, as part of an examination of material in the New York Times, the CPS signalled an intention hereon to take a broader view of the relevant legislation. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 10:10 am
However the CPS guidance quotes "DPP v McKeown, DPP v Jones ([1997] 2Cr App R, 155, HL at page 163) [where] Lord Hoffman defined a computer as "a device for storing, processing and retrieving information". [read post]
22 Dec 2015, 4:07 pm
Any order requiring any sort of journalistic material to be handed over to the state engages the right to freedom of expression of publishers and broadcasters under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and will amount to an interference for the purposes of Article 10 (see eg Handyside v United Kingdom and Tillack v Belgium). [read post]
