Kate Wilson

In summary the @metpoliceuk case seems to be that sexist discrimination by #spycops is not important and the Tribunal should decline to make a ruling on. Perry makes it clear that if the Tribunal does decide to make a ruling, he has no justification to offer for why it took place

Perry now addressing concepts of "Necessary and Proportionate" - He thinks the key point is that there are various "legitimate purposes" for deploying these powers set out under RIPA. Of course these rules changed in 2013 because of the horrifying revelations about #spycops abuse

Perry says the question is: Is there a law regulating #spycops? Does it provide adequate information about the circumstances in which public authorities are likely to use these powers? and does it indicate the scope of the discretion they are given to do that?

Judge picks up a key point: Police admit massive human rights breaches in my case, but claim #spycops operations overall were "lawful". There's a chunk in the middle police ignore - what *practical safeguards* prevented HRA abuses to make operations in accordance with the law?

The police submit "this is a pure question of law" It seems they don't want the court to look at the awful things #spcyops actually did. Perry: "We say the failing was not a failing because there wasn't a law, the failing was that there wasn't proper monitoring and supervision"

Judge: Let's be frank, some parts of the justification of this operation are "surprising". Is it necessary for the prevention and detection of crime to engage in operations of this sort? It's clear from HMIC report that this #spycops operation falls on the wrong side of the line.

Judge: You say as soon as crime is identified - be that mass violence or just blocking a street - that satisfies necessity? So you tick the box and go on to look at proportionality. Perry: Yes Judge: That does appear to strip the word "necessary" of its natural meaning