The Court of Appeal decision in Privacy International v Foreign Secretary (2021) found lawful the long-secret policy governing the purported authorisation and commission of criminal offences as part of the work of MI5 and its informants. The Court found MI5 had a public law power to engage in such criminality, historically under the royal prerogative and more latterly as an implied power under the Security Service Act 1989. The authors argue that these findings threaten serious damage to core constitutional principles, including the rule of law and settled understandings of the prerogative and its relationship with statute. They postulate a much narrower implied legal power under the 1989 Act, authorising only the making of representations to the CPS on whether it would be in the public interest to prosecute. This would provide a narrow path for MI5 officers and their informants to avoid legal jeopardy for activities core to its mission.

中文翻译：

---

违法维护国家安全？军情五处的特权、法规和权力

上诉法院在隐私国际诉外交大臣案中的裁决(2021) 认为，作为军情五处及其线人工作的一部分，管理据称授权和实施刑事犯罪的长期秘密政策是合法的。法院裁定军情五处拥有从事此类犯罪活动的公法权力，历史上是在皇室特权下，后来成为 1989 年《安全服务法》下的隐含权力。提交人认为，这些调查结果可能严重损害核心宪法原则，包括法治和对特权及其与法规的关系的明确理解。他们假设根据 1989 年法案的隐含法律权力要窄得多，仅授权就起诉是否符合公共利益向 CPS 提出申述。