Judges have ruled that the UK government is breaking the law with its digital surveillance regime, meaning ‘significant parts’ of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 – more commonly known as the Snoopers’ Charter – are likely to have to be amended.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Labour MP Tom Watson, who brought the case, and human rights campaign group Liberty, which represented Watson at the decision.

Watson’s challenge was to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA), which was the previous law covering state surveillance. In 2016, DRIPA was replaced by the Investigatory Powers Act, which more-or-less contained the exact same powers as the previous Act.

As a result, the decision of the Court calls into question the legality of parts of the Snoopers’ Charter, and Liberty will challenge this later this year in a separate case at the High Court.

“This legislation was flawed from the start. It was rushed through Parliament just before recess without proper parliamentary scrutiny,” said Watson.

“The Government must now bring forward changes to the Investigatory Powers Act to ensure that hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are innocent victims or witnesses to crime, are protected by a system of independent approval for access to communications data. I’m proud to have played my part in safeguarding citizen’s fundamental rights.”

Under the Investigatory Powers Act, UK law enforcement and intelligence agency gained increased powers in their rights to intercept communications and see internet connection records. It also meant that UK-based service providers had to keep hold of these internet connection records for at least one year, and even assist the authorities in their attempts to intercept data and communications.

The Home Office has acknowledged that changes must be made to the Investigatory Powers Act, but Liberty still believes the proposed changes fall short of what the European Court of Justice said needs to be addressed when the case was referred to it.