Investigatory Powers Bill

LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 40, the bill as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT 15

After Clause 8

Insert the following new Clause—

“      

Interception without lawful authority: award of costs

(1)    

This section applies where—

(a)    

a claim is made under section 8 (civil liability for certain unlawful

interceptions) against a person (“the defendant”),

(b)    

the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and

(c)    

the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.

(2)    

If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when

the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for

reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been

unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a

member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant

unless satisfied that—

(a)    

the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using

an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or

(b)    

it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award

costs against the defendant.

(3)    

If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time

when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member

at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the

defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs

against the defendant unless satisfied that—

(a)    

the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using

an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant

been a member), or

(b)    

it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a

different award of costs or make no award of costs.

(4)    

This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court.

(5)    

This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as

an approved regulator.

(6)    

Subsections (2) and (3) shall apply to any claim issued after this section

comes into force.

(7)    

For the purposes of this section “approved regulator” shall have the same

meaning as in section 42 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and “relevant

publisher” shall have the same meaning as in section 41 of that Act.”

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 15 for the following Reason—

Because it would not be appropriate to make such provision in relation to claims under

clause 8 while consideration is being given to commencing section 40 of the Crime and

Courts Act 2013.

LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for

their Reason 15A, and do propose Amendments 15B and 15C in lieu—

Insert the following new Clause—

“Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions

(1)    

An interception of a communication is actionable at the suit or instance

of—

(a)    

the sender of the communication, or

(b)    

the recipient, or intended recipient, of the communication,

if conditions A to C are met.

(2)    

Condition A is that the interception is carried out in the United Kingdom.

(3)    

Condition B is that the communication is intercepted in the course of its

transmission, by means of a public telecommunications system.

(4)    

Condition C is that the interception is carried out without lawful authority.

(5)    

For the meaning of “interception” and other key expressions used in this

section, see sections 4 to 6.”

Insert the following new Clause—

“Interception without lawful authority: awards of costs

(1)    

This section applies where—

(a)    

a claim is made under section (Civil liability for certain other unlawful

interceptions) against a person (“the defendant“), or a claim is made

for misuse of private information arising from an interception of a

communication carried out before the date on which section (Civil

liability for certain other unlawful interceptions) comes into force,

(b)    

the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and

(c)    

the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.

(2)    

If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when

the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for

reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been

unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a

member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant

unless satisfied that—

(a)    

the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using

an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or

(b)    

it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award

costs against the defendant.

(3)    

If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time

when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member

at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the

defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs

against the defendant unless satisfied that—

(a)    

the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using

an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant

been a member), or

(b)    

it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a

different award of costs or make no award of costs.

(4)    

This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court.

(5)    

This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as

an approved regulator.

(6)    

Subsections (1) to (3) shall only apply to a claim issued after this section

comes into force.

(7)    

For the purposes of this section “approved regulator”, “material time” and

“news-related material” shall have the same meaning as in section 42 of the

Crime and Courts Act 2013, and “relevant publisher” shall have the same

meaning as in section 41 of that Act.”

LORDS AMENDMENT 338

Clause 243

Page 191, line 38, leave out “(2) and” and insert “(1A) to”

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 338 for the following Reason—

Because it is consequential on Lords Amendment No. 339 to which the Commons disagree.

LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENT IN LIEU

The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 338, to which the Commons have disagreed

for their Reason 338A, and do propose Amendment 338B in lieu—

Page 191, line 38, after “(2)” insert “, (2A)”

LORDS AMENDMENT 339

Clause 243

Page 191, line 40, at end insert—

“(1A)    

Sections 8 and (Interception without lawful authority: award of costs) come into

force on the day following that on which this Act is passed.”

COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON

The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 339 for the following Reason—

Because it is inappropriate for clauses 8 and 9 to come into force before the other provisions

of the Bill relating to interception.

LORDS NON-INSISTENCE AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU

The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 339, to which the Commons have disagreed

for their Reason 339A, and do propose Amendments 339B and 339C in lieu—

Page 192, line 2, at end insert—

“(2A)    

Sections (Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions) and

(Interception without lawful authority: awards of costs) come into force on the

day following that on which this Act is passed.”

Page 192, line 4, at end insert—

“(3A)    

Sections (Civil liability for certain other unlawful interceptions) and

(Interception without lawful authority: awards of costs) are repealed at the end

of the period of six years starting with the day on which they come into

force.”