Propose a change

Investigatory Powers Act 2016

Write the words of this act the way you think they should read. Solon shows your change as a redline against the published text and pins it to that exact text, so it can never be applied to wording you did not see.

Change 1

What to do with it
As published

179 Approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners

(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to issue a warrant under section 178, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State's conclusions as to the following matters— (a) whether the warrant is necessary as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section, (b) whether the conduct that would be authorised by the warrant is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct, and (c) whether— (i) each of the specified operational purposes (see section 183) is a purpose for which the examination of material obtained under the warrant is or may be necessary, and (ii) the examination of such material for each such purpose is necessary as mentioned in section 178(1)(d)(ii). (2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must— (a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and (b) consider the matters referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy). (3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to issue a warrant under section 178, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal. (4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to issue a warrant under section 178, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to issue the warrant.

Your change, as a redline

179 Approval of warrants by Judicial Commissioners

(1) In deciding whether to approve a decision to issue a warrant under section 178, a Judicial Commissioner must review the Secretary of State's conclusions as to the following matters— (a) whether the warrant is necessary as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) of that section, (b) whether the conduct that would be authorised by the warrant is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by that conduct, and (c) whether— (i) each of the specified operational purposes (see section 183) is a purpose for which the examination of material obtained under the warrant is or may be necessary, and (ii) the examination of such material for each such purpose is necessary as mentioned in section 178(1)(d)(ii). (2) In doing so, the Judicial Commissioner must— (a) apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review, and (b) consider the matters referred to in subsection (1) with a sufficient degree of care as to ensure that the Judicial Commissioner complies with the duties imposed by section 2 (general duties in relation to privacy). (3) Where a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve a decision to issue a warrant under section 178, the Judicial Commissioner must give the Secretary of State written reasons for the refusal. (4) Where a Judicial Commissioner, other than the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, refuses to approve a decision to issue a warrant under section 178, the Secretary of State may ask the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to decide whether to approve the decision to issue the warrant.

One line that says what changes, such as "Halve the dog tax".

Who it helps, what it costs, what it fixes. It is what persuades people to support it.

A proposal here is not law. Support on Solon is evidence that people want the change; the official route says what it takes to make it law.

Sign in to file your proposal. What you have written stays on this page.

Sign in to file it

Think it through

Ask what your change would do, who would gain and who would bear a cost, and where something like it is already law. The assistant reads your draft as it stands, cites the law and the studies it finds, and takes no side. What you file stays yours.

Questions to start with
Think it through
Legal information from the published text, not advice for your case. Check the sources. Find a law · What the register holds