The emergency surveillance legislation that was rushed through the Houses of Commons and Lords last week after just three days’ debate faces a legal challenge in the High Court by two MPs.
An application for a judicial review of the new legislation, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIP), is to be mounted on behalf of Conservative MP David Davis and Labour MP Tom Watson, both civil liberties campaigners, by human rights organisation Liberty.
According to Mr Davis, the Act was driven through the Commons with “ridiculous and unnecessary haste to meet a completely artificial emergency” and has the effect of “tagging every single person in Britain who has a phone”.
Meanwhile, Mr Watson said that he was taking the unusual step of going for a judicial review because the Act failed to answer concerns that the blanket retention of data was a breach of fundamental rights to privacy.
Liberty is to argue that the new legislation is incompatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the right to respect for private and family life, and Article 7 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, concerning respect for private and family life and protection of personal data.
The DRIP Act requires internet and phone companies to collect their customers’ personal communication data, tracking their phone and internet use, and store it for 12 months to give access to the police, security services and up to 600 different public bodies on request.
The civil liberty campaigners are using the legal challenge to invite Home Secretary Theresa May to replace the Act with a replacement bill or concede that there is a substantive case to answer in the High Court.