The Government should not rest too hard on an IPT judgment. It is normal in these intelligence oversight commissions to have unanimity from the judges. In this case it was a 3-2 judgment, and the minority in that judgment described the Government’s argument as “fanciful” and “extraordinary” and as setting “dangerous precedents”, so I do not think they should rest on that at all.
Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Davis
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 5 October 2020.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
681 c667 Session
2019-21Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-28 15:57:23 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-10-05/20100532000085
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-10-05/20100532000085
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-10-05/20100532000085