Seizure, and obtaining of passwords of, communications devices.

political analyst

In England a few years ago, a woman was arrested for allegedly making transphobic tweets on social media. Police told her that the Regulations of Investigative Powers Act (RIPA) meant that she had to disclose the passwords of her communications devices. On legal advice, she complied. She was not charged. She is suing the police.

I know that the UK does not have a written constitution but, given what is traditionally understood as 'fair play' in Britain (e.g. the Magna Carta), how could Parliament have authorised police to go to people's houses and arrest them for allegedly hateful online posts and seize their communications devices (i.e. laptops, iPhones, iPads) without asking judges to grant warrants for the arrests and seizures of the devices?

Furthermore, regarding the compelling of suspects to disclose passwords, do police and prosecutors in England not consider the possibility of a suspect forgetting a password?

How could it be proven that a suspect still remembers a password? Surely, it is facile to assume that "I can't remember" is a lie.

One eyed Jack

I know that the UK does not have a written constitution but, given what is traditionally understood as 'fair play' in Britain (e.g. the Magna Carta), how could Parliament have authorised police to go to people's houses and arrest them for allegedly hateful online posts and seize their communications devices (i.e. laptops, iPhones, iPads) without asking judges to grant warrants for the arrests and seizures of the devices?

The Wiki explains how Parliament could have authorised the powers of the Act:

It was introduced by the Tony Blair Labour government ostensibly to take account of technological change such as the growth of the Internet and strong encryption.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000

Furthermore, regarding the compelling of suspects to disclose passwords, do police and prosecutors in England not consider the possibility of a suspect forgetting a password? 

How could it be proven that a suspect still remembers a password? Surely, it is facile to assume that "I can't remember" is a lie.

They totally do consider the possibility that a person could forget the password to devices they use regularly, it’s not necessary to prove that a suspect still remembers a password; however if it later transpires that they are lying, they’re in even bigger trouble -

What happens if I don't know my password when the police ask for it? 

Since you have the choice to not provide requested passwords or PIN codes to the police, you may decide to deny that you have knowledge of this information.

If you genuinely do not know or remember the password, you could use this as a legal defence for not complying with a RIPA notice, though you should seek specialist advice.

However, even if you are unable to provide the password, modern technology means it may still be possible for the police to access your phone without your co-operation.

https://www.pcdsolicitors.co.uk/advice-news/latest-news/do-i-have-to-provide-my-phone-password-to-the-police/

Peregrinus

In England a few years ago, a woman was arrested for allegedly making transphobic tweets on social media. Police told her that the Regulations of Investigative Powers Act (RIPA) meant that she had to disclose the passwords of her communications devices. On legal advice, she complied. She was not charged. She is suing the police.

What is she suing the police for?

I know that the UK does not have a written constitution but, given what is traditionally understood as 'fair play' in Britain (e.g. the Magna Carta), how could Parliament have authorised police to go to people's houses and arrest them for allegedly hateful online posts and seize their communications devices (i.e. laptops, iPhones, iPads) without asking judges to grant warrants for the arrests and seizures of the devices?

Parliament, in the UK, can legislate anything. It can legislate to override, modify or repeal Magna Carta, and in fact very little of Magna Carta remains in force.

(Worth adding that arrest without a warrant is and always has been extremely common in the UK. Very few arrests are carried out on foot of a warrant. Most arrests are carried out on the basis of reasonable suspicion of involvement in an offence. It's the seizure of the communication devices, and even more the obligation to provide the password, that's more unusual.)

Anyone looking to challenge this legislation is almost certainly arguing that it's a violation of the UK's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. relying in particular on ECHR provisions dealing with the right to privacy and the right against self-incrimination.

Furthermore, regarding the compelling of suspects to disclose passwords, do police and prosecutors in England not consider the possibility of a suspect forgetting a password?

That's a good question. I don't know if anyone has been prosecuted for not disclosing a password which they say they have forgotten. I'm speculating, but it may be policy not to prosecute in such a case, if the authorities don't want a court ruling that says this is a good defence.

If the authorities really want to read your messages without your getting your password, they mostly can. It just takes a bit longer.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123509930#Comment_123509930

Her civil case is ongoing and so she can't say much about it.

As for not disclosing a password, a man who was suspected of the murder of a girl was jailed for that. He didn't claim that he had forgotten it. Eventually, he was found guilty of the girl's murder. The following article is from 2019.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-48994913

Peregrinus

Her civil case is ongoing and so she can't say much about it.

The grounds on which she is suing would be a matter of public record. (But I only ask out of curiosity. It seems to me that if she handed over her password at the time, on legal advice, and subsequently felt she was not legally obliged to do so, she might sue her lawyers, rather than (or as well as) the police.)

As for not disclosing a password, a man who was suspected of the murder of a girl was jailed for that. He didn't claim that he had forgotten it. Eventually, he was found guilty of the girl's murder.

He's not a character who attracts sympathy, obviously, but the case does make the point that illiberal measures that are said, when introduced, to be justified by the need to address a threat of terrorism very often come to be used by the authorities in circumstances that have nothing to do with terrorism.