Abstract
Spies have always crossed borders. And in the close allied relationship between the so-called Five Eyes, intelligence has also crossed borders. These practices are occasionally controversial. Intelligence sharing was at the heart of the Maher Arar inquiry, examining the conduct by Canadian police in providing (incorrect) intelligence on Canadian Maher Arar that culminated in his maltreatment in Syria. Foreign electronic surveillance provoked sustained debate after the 2013 Snowden disclosures. More quietly, however, and sometimes clearly provoked by these public controversies, courts too have begun building legal pickets around these sorts of practices. In Canada, the result has been the ‘judicialisation’ of intelligence collection and sharing. This chapter examines recent developments in this area.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
CSEC also provides “advice, guidance and services to help ensure the protection of electronic information and of information infrastructures of importance to the Government of Canada.” This Mandate ‘B’ does not, however, figure in this chapter.
- 2.
A copy of this document has been released under Access to Information and is on file with the author.
- 3.
Memorandum of Understanding between CSIS and CSE received by Access to Information request #CSIS 117-2014-345, released Apr 29 2015.For more information contact Craig Forcese.
- 4.
This document is on file with the author.
References
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). 2014. Statement of Claim, Federal Court of Canada. https://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20141027-CSEC-Statement-of-Claim.pdf.
Canada. 2006. Commission of Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation to Maher Arar: A New Review Mechanism for the RCMP’s National Security Activities (Arar Inquiry). Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada.
———. 2008. Internal Inquiry into the Actions of Canadian Officials in Relation Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad Abou-Elmaati and Muayyed Nureddin (Iacobucci Inquiry). Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services.
———. 2010. Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182, Air India Flight 182: A Canadian Tragedy (Air India Inquiry). Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Cavoukian, Ann. 2013. A Primer on Metadata: Separating Fact from Fiction. Ontario: Information and Privacy Commissioner, July.
Commissioner of the Communications Security Establishment. 2012. 2011–2012 Annual Report. http://www.ocsec-bccst.gc.ca/ann-rpt/2011-2012/5_e.php.
Currie, John H.2008. Khadr’s Twist on Hape: Tortured Determinations of the Extraterritorial Reach of the Canadian Charter. Canadian Yearbook of International Law 46: 307–335.
Deeks, Ashley. 2016. Confronting and Adapting: Intelligence Agencies and International Law. Virginia Law Review 102: 599–685.
Forcese, Craig.2011. Spies Without Borders: International Law and Intelligence Collection. Journal of National Security Law & Policy 5(1): 179–210.
———.2014. The Judicialization of Extraterritorial Spying: Gaps and Gap-Fillers in the World of CSIS Foreign Operations. Criminal Law Quarterly 61(4): 440–450.
———.2015. Law, Logarithms and Liberties: Legal Issues Arising from CSE’s Metadata Program. In Law, Privacy and Surveillance in Canada in the Post-Snowden Era, ed. M. Geist. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Global Futures Forum Conference. 2008. Remarks by Jim Judd, Director of CSIS. Vancouver, April 15.
Government of Canada/Attorney General of Canada. 2014. Response to Civil Claim, in BC Civil Liberties Association v. AG of Canada (GoC Response). Supreme Court of British Columbia, no. S137827, January 20.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 2014. Resolution A/RES/68/167. The Right to Privacy in a Digital Age, December 18.
Legislation
ASIO Act (Commonwealth of Australia). 1979.
Bill C-44. 2015. Statutes of Canada.
Criminal Code. 1985. Revised Statutes of Canada.
CSIS Act. 1985. Revised Statutes of Canada.
Intelligence Services Act (Commonwealth of Australia). 2001.
Intelligence Services Act (United Kingdom). 1994.
National Defence Act, R.S.C., 1985. c. N-5.
National Security Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) (Commonwealth of Australia). 2014.
Cases
Charkaoui v. Canada. 2008. SCC 38.
Hunter v. Southam Inc. 1984. 2S.C.R. 145.
Khadr v. Canada. 2010. SCC 3.
———. 2008. SCC 28.
R. v. Atwal. 1988. 1F.C. 107.
R. v. Duarte. 1990. 1 SCR 30.
R. v. Hape. 2007. SCC 26.
R. v. Tse. 2012. SCC 16.
R. v. Wakeling. 2014. SCC 72.
Re CSIS Act. 2008. FC 301.
Re X. 2014. FCA 249.
Re X. 2013. FC 1275.
Re X. 2009. FC 1058.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Forcese, C. (2016). One Warrant to Rule Them All: Reconsidering the Judicialisation of Extraterritorial Intelligence Collection. In: Lippert, R., Walby, K., Warren, I., Palmer, D. (eds) National Security, Surveillance and Terror. Crime Prevention and Security Management. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43243-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43243-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43242-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43243-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)