R (on the application of Privacy International) (Appellant) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal and others (Respondents)

The case before the Supreme Court involved a challenge to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal's (IPT) decision to dismiss a claim brought by Privacy International, an NGO. The central issue was whether section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) effectively excluded judicial review of the IPT's decisions. The appellant argued that the wording of section 67(8), which stated that decisions of the IPT "shall not be subject to appeal or be liable to be questioned in any court", was not materially different from that which the House of Lords had held not to oust judicial review in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission. The respondents contended that the inclusion of the words "including decisions as to whether they have jurisdiction" in the parenthesis in section 67(8) materially altered the meaning of the provision. The Supreme Court considered whether Parliament could exclude judicial review of the IPT's decisions, particularly in cases where the IPT made an ordinary error of law. The Court concluded that the wording of section 67(8) was clear and unambiguous in excluding judicial review of the IPT's decisions, including ordinary errors of law. The Court held that the IPT, with its distinguished composition and unique procedures, was a judicial body of like standing and authority to that of the High Court. Parliament had conferred both independence and authority upon the IPT, allowing it to exclude judicial review of ordinary errors of law. The Court's decision affirmed the principle that Parliament could, by clear and explicit language, exclude judicial review of decisions made by tribunals of limited jurisdiction.