find the latest legal job
Corporate Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Highly-respected, innovative and entrepreneurial Not-for-Profit · Competency based Board
View details
Chief Counsel and Company Secretary
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: Newcastle, Maitland & Hunter NSW
· Dynamic, high growth organisation · ASX listed market leader
View details
In-house Projects Lawyer | Renewables / Solar | 2-5 Years PQE
Category: Generalists - In House | Location: All Australia
· Help design the future · NASDAQ Listed
View details
Insurance Lawyer (3-5 PAE)
Category: Insurance and Superannuation Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Dynamic organisation ·
View details
Legal Counsel
Category: Corporate and Commercial Law | Location: North Sydney NSW 2060
· 18 month fixed term contract · 3-5 years PQE with TMT exposure
View details
UK intelligence agencies intercept lawyer-client communications

UK intelligence agencies intercept lawyer-client communications

MI5, MI6 and GCHQ have eavesdropped on lawyer-client consultations for years and may have used legally-privileged information to gain leverage in cases brought against them.

MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (the UK’s Government Communications Headquarters) have eavesdropped on lawyer-client consultations for years and may have used legally-privileged information to gain leverage in cases brought against them.

If that doesn’t shake your faith in government, Folklaw doesn’t know what will. Lawyer-client privilege is only one of the oldest and most fundamental principles in English law.

UK intelligence agencies were forced to release their policies for the first time last week. The regulatory framework has been described by activists as “so hopeless [it] appears to have been jotted down on the back of a beer mat”.

The disclosed extracts of documents show that secret service staff are permitted to target conversations, emails and phone calls between lawyers and clients.

The documents state, “The confidentiality of lawyer-client communications is fiercely guarded by the law and any departure from it in the national security context must be narrowly construed and strictly justified”.

However, this statement is qualified with: “In principle legal professional privilege material may be used just like any other item of intelligence, e.g. to generate enquiries, mount a surveillance operation or task an agent. Where necessary and proportionate it may also be disclosed to an outside body.”

The British government has resisted pressure to make its procedures public for months, arguing that secrecy was in the interests of national security. 

But the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) forced its hand as part of a claim brought by two Libyans, Abdel-Hakim Belhaj and Sami Al Saadi, and their families, who were tortured by Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime after they were abducted by the CIA and MI6 in 2004.

IPT investigates complaints of unlawful use of covert techniques by intelligence agencies.

Belhaj’s lawyers first suspected a privacy breach after US whistleblower Edward Snowden demonstrated that intelligence agencies were engaged in surveillance programs of Orwellian proportions on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Libyan group are currently gearing up to sue the government after receiving the official go-ahead from the court last week.

The intelligence agencies’ policy governing the use of lawyer-client confidential communication is completely inadequate, according to Belhaj’s lawyer, Dinah Rose QC. 

“This case is the tip of the iceberg. It raises questions about a large number of cases and about the integrity of judgments reached by courts in civil and criminal cases,” she said.

Another one of Belhaj’s lawyers, Cori Crider, said, “The documents clearly show that MI5’s and GCHQ’s policies on snooping on lawyers have major loopholes.

“Today’s question is not whether, but how much, they have rigged the game in their favour in the ongoing court case over torture.

“This raises troubling implications for the whole British justice system. In how many cases has the government eavesdropped to give itself an unfair advantage in court?”

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

UK intelligence agencies intercept lawyer-client communications
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
LCA president Fiona McLeod SC
Aug 17 2017
Where social fault lines meet the justice gap in Aus
After just returning from a tour of the Northern Territory, LCA president Fiona McLeod SC speaks wit...
Marriage equality flag
Aug 17 2017
ALHR backs High Court challenge to marriage equality postal vote
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) has voiced its support for a constitutional challenge to ...
Give advice
Aug 17 2017
A-G issues advice on judiciary’s public presence
Commonwealth Attorney-General George Brandis QC has offered his advice on the public presence of jud...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...