WAPI - World Association of Professional Investigators

WAPI - World Association of Professional Investigators Professional Association offering credibility to the our clients that our members are who they say they and can deliver a Professional Service.

CAN SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS HAVE AUDIO?NEWS - "without comment”Can Surveillance Cameras Have Audio?Ron Harrison | 7 Jun 202...
08/06/2026

CAN SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS HAVE AUDIO?

NEWS - "without comment”

Can Surveillance Cameras Have Audio?
Ron Harrison | 7 Jun 2026

Many modern cameras do feature built-in audio capabilities, such as microphones for "listen-in" and this is perfectly legal in the UK, but their use is strictly regulated. Specific covert cameras for surveillance come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and can be used to record both visual and audio at close range. This footage will need to be carefully edited when presenting to the client to ensure no other parties feature, but an unedited copy is always kept for any legal proceedings.
Is Surveillance Legal

The first thing we should ask “is surveillance legal” Yes surveillance in UK is legal, it is particularly important that surveillance is conducted in a public place, to be in accordance with RIPA - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulation-of-investigatory-powers-act-2000-ripa/regulation-of-investigatory-powers-act-2000-ripa - although as a private company this is not actually necessary, it is best practice. It may be necessary to follow the subject for a long period of time, whilst in a public place, on foot, in a vehicle, on public transport, entering shopping malls, pubs and restaurants. It is very important to identify people they meet and if possible, record the conversations, but sometimes they meet with people who have nothing to do with the assignment, care must be taken not to identify them, the same with children. The camera never lies!
What Is Surveillance

The covert observation or monitoring of a person by whatever means; for the purpose of a specific investigation or specific operation to lawfully gather intelligence / evidence, for crime, adultery, information or intelligence. Basically, following someone around to see what they get up to, without being identified.

Surveillance is literally following the subject wherever they go, recording movements and who they meet, carried out by an experienced team to gather specific evidence or intelligence in order to prove or disprove the specific request from the client, we do not believe in one-man surveillance, it is unprofessional, we would recommend deploying a minimum of a three-man team, but with protracted surveillance we often have to use a larger team so as not to be compromised. The purpose of surveillance is to gather intelligence and monitor movements. It spans multiple sectors, adapting its goals to fit specific operational needs.

To read the full article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-surveillance-cameras-have-audio-ron-harrison-fgboe/

Reposted by kind consent of,
Ron Harrison - MD at Surelock
Past President of The Association of British Investigators, Consultant for the BBC.
Security Consultant to businesses and personnel with a team of private investigators.
https://www.surelock.org/

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

Surelock Private Investigators offers professional investigation services in the UK, specialising in surveillance, background checks and more. Contact us today.

02/06/2026

THE NEW HIGH COURT STRUCTURE - ENGLAND & WALES

NEWS - “without comment”

New High Court structure
Chancery division to be replaced by new business and property division
JOSHUA ROZENBERG
JUN 2

The lady chief justice has announced the creation of a new business and property division for the High Court of England and Wales. It will replace the Chancery division, whose origins as a court date back to the mid-14th century — though the king’s chancery was established centuries earlier.

Today’s announcement — which I predicted in January — means that Sir Colin Birss, who is currently chancellor of the High Court, will become president of the High Court business and property division.

He will assume responsibility for three courts that, for historic rather than practical reasons, are confusingly to be found within the King’s Bench division. They are

the Commercial Court,
the Technology Construction Court and
the Admiralty Court.

These will be added to the new division’s existing responsibilities for

the Business List,
the Financial List,
the Competition List,
the Insolvency and Companies List,
the Intellectual Property List,
the Property, Trusts and Probate List and
the Revenue List.
By unifying the group of specialist civil courts that handle high-value, complex and often international litigation, it will be possible for the head of division to provide more flexible judicial deployment, making it easier for the right judge to be assigned to each case.

The new division will be based in the Rolls Building in central London and operate from Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle.

Baroness Carr, the lady chief justice of England and Wales, said:

The creation of the business and property division more accurately reflects the requirements of people and businesses today. Its clearer structure improves access to civil justice and reinforces the country’s position as a leading global centre for dispute resolution, supporting crucial economic growth.

In a recorded message, Carr said she hoped the change would provide greater clarity for users and strengthen accessibility for all:

David Lammy, the justice secretary, said in a written statement to parliament that the government was pleased to support this judiciary-led initiative. It was intended to deliver a number of benefits:

Supporting economic growth by strengthening the international profile and accessibility of these courts, thereby reinforcing the UK’s position as a leading global dispute resolution centre.

Improving access to justice through clearer structures and a more intuitive framework for domestic and international court users; and
Strengthening judicial governance by providing a single point of leadership.

Lammy said the reforms would be put into effect by an order in council, alongside updates to the Civil Procedure Rules, practice directions and associated court materials.

The changes are expected to take effect in October.

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

NETHERLANDS: Dutch Security claims UK Agencies spied on International Criminal Court StaffNEWS - “without comment”A Dutc...
15/05/2026

NETHERLANDS: Dutch Security claims UK Agencies spied on International Criminal Court Staff

NEWS - “without comment”

A Dutch government security agency claims UK spy firms gathered information on International Criminal Court (ICC) staff and their families.

The main target was a lawyer who had filed a sexual abuse complaint against ICC prosecutor Karim Khan. Khan denies any wrongdoing.

NL Times, a Dutch outlet, wrote on 12 May:

The Dutch National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security investigated a secret intelligence operation in which two private intelligence bureaus based in London collected sensitive personal information for months on employees of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, their children, and other family members.

The paper claimed:

The main target was a 38-year-old lawyer at the International Criminal Court who filed a sexual abuse complaint against British prosecutor Karim Khan in spring 2024. Khan, who was then the court’s chief prosecutor, stepped down in May 2025 and remains on leave pending the outcome of the misconduct inquiry.

Adding:

Other court employees targeted in the operation were linked to those same allegations against Khan or to the handling of the case, according to documents and recordings reviewed by NRC as part of the Dutch inquiry.

NL Times mentioned that two UK firms alleged to have spied on ICC staff and their families.
One is Highgate, based in London’s Mayfair.

The firm describes itself as:

a strategic advisory firm expert in dispute resolution and special situations.

And claims it has an “international team”:

drawn from the best talent in intelligence, law, government, finance, media and the military.

The other spy firm is not named by NL Times.

NL Times said:

Private detectives reportedly sought information that could suggest a cover-up or connections to Israel or its intelligence service, the Mossad. The operation came more than a year after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The website said the Dutch agency has spoken to “several ICC employees” about the spy firm’s activity:

In a confidential letter to the court, seen by the newspaper, the agency said it had forwarded information from those discussions to Dutch intelligence services and police.

Police are reportedly investigating for potential criminal offences:

The agency declined to comment to the NRC on the outcome or status of the probe, and police would not answer questions.

NL Times claimed:

The Guardian reported in November 2025 that the purpose of the operation was to collect information that could be used to undermine the sexual abuse complaint filed by the alleged victim. Documents and recordings reviewed during the Dutch investigation show the private detectives specifically searched for evidence of a possible cover-up or any links to Israel or its intelligence service, the Mossad.

And that:

a diplomatic unit within the Qatari state paid for the operation.

The Qatari’s have denied involvement in this latest chapter of a story which has gone on for two years. Karim Khan strenuously denies any wrongdoing and his lawyers said any suggestion he had been involved in the operation was “completely incorrect”. Khan was part of the ICC tribunal which issued an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

Full story: https://www.thecanary.co/uk/news/2026/05/13/icc-dutch-security-probe/

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

The main target was a lawyer who had filed a sexual abuse complaint against ICC prosecutor Karim Khan. Khan denies any wrongdoing

CHINA PRC - TWO CONVICTED IN UK OF SPYING FOR HONG KONGNEWS - “without comment”Security professionals are encouraged to ...
15/05/2026

CHINA PRC - TWO CONVICTED IN UK OF SPYING FOR HONG KONG

NEWS - “without comment”

Security professionals are encouraged to be vigilant and to ensure that they do robust due diligence on their clients.

The services security professionals offer may be attractive to state actors looking to undertake malign activity in the UK.

Security professionals may be at risk of committing an offence under the 2023 legislation if they work for clients without establishing who they are and whether they are linked to a foreign power.
Published 20 January 2025

Two men found guilty of spying on Hong Kong dissidents in UK for China
By Reuters
May 8, 2026

Two men, including a British immigration officer, were found guilty in a London court on Thursday of spying on behalf of Hong Kong and ultimately China, targeting prominent pro-democracy dissidents now based in Britain.

Chung Biu “Bill” Yuen, 65, and Chi Leung “Peter” Wai, 40, who worked for the UK Border Force, were convicted of assisting a foreign intelligence service by carrying out surveillance on targets between December 2023 and May 2024.

The men, both dual Chinese and British nationals, had denied the accusations, while the Chinese embassy in London has accused Britain of fabricating the charges against them.

They are believed to be the first people to have been convicted of spying for China in Britain, local media reported. Wai and Yuen will be sentenced at a later date and face up to 14 years in jail.

The jury at London’s Old Bailey court was unable to reach a verdict on another charge of conducting “foreign interference” by forcing entry on behalf of Hong Kong authorities into the home in northern England of a woman who has been accused of fraud in the city.
Ties strained

Relations between Britain and China have been strained since a national security crackdown on sometimes violent pro-democracy protests in 2019 in Hong Kong, which was under British rule for 156 years before reverting to Chinese sovereignty almost three decades ago.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer visited China in January, but repeated accusations of espionage activities have proved a stumbling block in attempts to improve bilateral ties.

Following Thursday’s convictions, security minister Dan Jarvis said Britain would continue to hold China to account and challenge them for any actions which put Britons’ safety at risk.

The Chinese ambassador would be summoned “to make it clear activity like this was, and will always be, unacceptable on UK soil,” Jarvis added.

Prosecutor Duncan Atkinson told jurors that Yuen and Wai had been tasked to carry out “shadow policing operations” for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and ultimately China.

Yuen was a retired Hong Kong police officer who worked at Hong Kong’s Economic and Trade Office (HKETO) in London, while Wai, as well as working for the immigration force was also a volunteer officer for the City of London Police.

Wai was convicted of misusing his Border Force job to search the interior ministry’s computer database and gain access to details of foreign nationals.

Atkinson said the men’s operation involved spying on dissident's resident in Britain, including activist Nathan Law, for whom the Hong Kong government had issued bounties of HK$1 million ($127,700) for information leading to their whereabouts or capture.

Messages between Yuen, Wai and others showed them discussing plans to target activists, who were referred to as “cockroaches,” and carrying out surveillance on British political figures.

“For years, members of the Hong Kong diaspora in the United Kingdom have lived in fear,” Finn Lau, one of the targeted activists, said in a statement. “Today’s conviction confirms that fear was not paranoia. It was real.”

A third man who was accused of the same offenses as Yuen and Wai was found dead not long after the trio were charged. Matthew Trickett, 37, a former British Royal Marine, had worked as an immigration officer and private investigator. His death was not considered suspicious.

Last November, Britain’s MI5 security service warned lawmakers that Chinese agents were trying to collect information and influence activity at Westminster.

On the day Yuen and Wai’s trial started in March, British police said they had arrested three men on suspicion of assisting China’s foreign intelligence service, including the partner of a sitting lawmaker.

Britain approved in January China’s plans to build Beijing’s largest embassy in Europe in London, leading critics to accuse Starmer of prioritizing economic ties over security risks, although UK security officials said these could be mitigated.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/05/07/europe/uk-china-hong-kong-spying-hnk-intl

MET POLICE NEWS
7 May 2026

Two men convicted of National Security Act offences

Two men have been convicted of National Security Act offences after an investigation by Counter Terrorism Policing found they were illegally gathering information for the benefit of Hong Kong and Chinese authorities.

This was disrupted when police arrested a group of people who were carrying out activity targeting a woman based in Pontefract, who was being accused by her former employer in Hong Kong of fraud.

Commander Helen Flanagan, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing London, which led the investigation said: “The activity by Wai and Yuen was both sinister and chilling. Our investigation found they were spying for the Hong Kong authorities, targeting UK-based pro-democracy campaigners.

“It is completely unacceptable for anyone to carry out this kind of activity on behalf of a foreign state here in the UK. I hope this outcome provides reassurance to those living in the UK who may be concerned about being targeted by any foreign state, that we will do everything we can to help keep them safe.”

Chi Leung (Peter) Wai, 40, (17.06.1985) of Staines-upon-Thames and Chung Biu Yuen, 65, (02.06.60) of Hackney were found guilty at the Old Bailey on 7 May of assisting a foreign intelligence service, which is an offence under the National Security Act (NSA), 2023. The jury could not reach a verdict on charges against both men of foreign interference – also under the NSA, 2023.

In addition, Wai was also found guilty of misconduct in public office – relating to the misuse of Home Office systems he accessed while working as an officer in Border Force.

On 1 May, 2024 police arrested nine people at a flat in Pontefract, West Yorkshire. They were arrested after breaking into the property, which belonged to a woman who moved to the UK from Hong Kong in 2023.

The woman had been accused of fraud by her former employer in Hong Kong, although the woman denied this and said that she had been set up. A group of people, which included her former boss, along with Wai, a man called Matthew Trickett and two former Hong Kong police officers travelled to the flat the day before to try and locate the woman.

They attempted to get her to open the door by pretending to be maintenance workers, and even poured water underneath her door, stating that she needed to let them in because of a water leak.

After there was no response, the group decided to force entry into the flat themselves. However, shortly after the entering the property, Counter Terrorism Police officers - who were carrying out their own investigation into the group - arrived and they were arrested. Yuen, who had been keeping in contact with the group from London was also arrested and Wai, Yuen and Trickett were subsequently charged. The others were released while the investigation continued.

The subsequent investigation centred around the analysis of messages between Wai, Yuen and Trickett, as well as some of the others who were arrested in Pontefract. Through forensic examination of their digital devices, detectives were able to piece together how Yuen, in his role as an office manager at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (HKETO), was in contact with individuals linked to the Hong Kong authorities. Yuen was then then tasking Wai with spying and surveillance activities focusing on UK-based pro-democracy campaigners.

Detectives also found evidence that Wai had been exploiting his position as a Border Force officer, finding several examples of where he accessed the files of several Chinese and Hong Kong nationals in the UK.

Although Wai claimed he was simply carrying out legitimate private security work linked to some of these individuals, evidence from Trickett’s phone showed there was a clear awareness by Wai and Trickett of the significance of the people they were targeting and the links back to the Hong Kong authorities. Messages on Trickett’s phone also showed that Yuen was making payments to the pair – despite Yuen claiming that he was not involved in what they were doing.

Detectives found evidence that showed how requests from Hong Kong were coming into Yuen and then being onward-tasked to Wai and Trickett to carry out. This included a request from Hong Kong to Yuen for information about a specific individual. The same person’s details were then passed from Yuen to Wai and officers found evidence of Wai carrying out illicit checks on Home Office systems for that same person.

Following authorisation from the CPS, Yuen, Wai and Trickett were all charged on 12 May, 2024. However, after he was charged and released on bail, Mr Trickett was found deceased in a park in Maidenhead on 19 May, 2024. An inquest into Mr Trickett’s death is expected to take place following the conclusion of these current criminal proceedings.

Commander Flanagan added: “This investigation was incredibly complex, with over 20 terabytes of data to trawl through, including thousands of messages and information in multiple languages. But despite significant challenges, we were able to show how Yuen and Wai were working with each other and that they were clearly aware this was for the benefit of the Hong Kong authorities to spy on pro-democracy campaigners here in the UK.

“This case should serve as a stark warning to anyone who might be involved in any private investigation work, that you must be very sure this is not being done for the benefit of a foreign state. If and where that happens, then you will likely face investigation, arrest and potential prosecution under the National Security Act. And if you are convicted, then like Wai and Yuen, you will be facing extremely serious consequences.”

Yuen and Wai are both due to be sentenced at the Old Bailey on a date to be confirmed.

https://news.met.police.uk/news/two-men-convicted-of-national-security-act-offences-509120

REMINDER - NEWS - “without comment” published April 2025

U.K WARNING:
National Security Act 2023
FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS & THEIR AGENCIES:
The Home Office has published new guidance to support the security industry, including but not limited to those who work in private investigation, close protection, or advise on corporate security and risk, to understand where they may be at risk of committing an offence under the National Security Act 2023.
This guidance has been issued on GOV.UK to ensure it is available to all security professionals and representative bodies. You can find the guidance here
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/complying-with-the-national-security-act-2023-security-professionals

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

Guidance for security professionals on how to comply with the National Security Act 2023.

ITALIAN POLICE SOLD PERSONAL INFO TO P*sNEWS - “without comment”Rogue Italian police sold celebrities’ personal info to ...
15/05/2026

ITALIAN POLICE SOLD PERSONAL INFO TO P*s

NEWS - “without comment”

Rogue Italian police sold celebrities’ personal info to private investigators
By AFP
May 13, 2026

Italian police officers harvested the personal information of celebrities and financiers from police databases and sold it to private detectives and debt collectors, investigators said Wednesday.

Police in Naples said 29 people are under investigation for an alleged “criminal conspiracy aimed at illegally accessing computer systems, corruption, and the disclosure of professional secrets”.

The officers stand accused of accessing police databases for private companies specializing in investigations or debt recovery and looking for details such as information on criminal cases, or tax or banking data.

“The victims of these breaches... include certain figures from the worlds of entertainment, finance, and business, as well as several corporations,” police said in a statement.

More than one million data records were stolen, including over 630,000 by two police officers, officials said.

Documents seized by investigators included a “price list”.

Access to a police database on their investigations cost 25 euros (US$30), while information found in the social security computer system cost between six and 11 euros.

Police seized approximately 1.3 million euros from some of those under investigation, the statement said.

Full Article at https://www.cp24.com/news/world/2026/05/13/rogue-italian-police-sold-celebrities-personal-info-to-private-investigators/

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

Italian police officers harvested the personal information of celebrities and financiers from police databases and sold it to private detectives and debt collectors, investigators said Wednesday.

UK: SOLICITOR FINED FOR DISCLOSING A LITIGANTS ADDRESSNEWS - “without comment”Family solicitor who hired private investi...
12/05/2026

UK: SOLICITOR FINED FOR DISCLOSING A LITIGANTS ADDRESS

NEWS - “without comment”

Family solicitor who hired private investigator fined £17,500
By Bianca Castro
11 May 2026

A Family law solicitor who hired a private investigator to find out the address of a litigant in person which he then shared with his client has been fined £17,500.

Sole practitioner Clive Graham Wood, admitted in 1982, was alleged to have attempted to take unfair advantage of Person M’s position as a litigant in person by ‘repeatedly’ asking her for her contact details when he knew or ought to have known that she did not want to provide them and had no legal duty to do so.

He was also alleged to have obtained Person M’s contact details by instructing a private investigator. He then disclosed those details to his client when he knew or ought to have known Person M would not have consented to her details being obtained in such a way, and, under the Family Procedure Rules, Person M was entitled to withhold her contact details until directed to disclose them by a court order.

Wood denied both allegations in their entirety.

Representing himself during the day-and-a-half substantive hearing at the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal, Wood confirmed in cross examination he had instructed a tracing agent ‘at the specific instructions of my client’.

The three-person panel found both allegations proved but dismissed part of the second allegation that in obtaining Person M’s contact details by hiring a private investigator he had prevented the court from being able to properly determine whether such disclosure should be made.

Full Article:

https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawgazette.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ffamily-solicitor-who-hired-private-investigator-fined-17500%2F5126735.article&data=05%7C02%7Cian%40pilimited.com%7C05c52c15515f44fa156c08deaf441c94%7C4db362d5098e40eaac7d9845f6c73904%7C0%7C0%7C639140904381668789%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C80000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xF5N6MZDvdXx%2FH74W0z1L7OpxnRkXFeVXiFyqsfSdFg%3D&reserved=0

NOTES FOR CONSIDERATION:

The article still does not appear to substantiate the proposition that the solicitor’s misconduct consisted simply of “hiring” a private investigator.
The publicly accessible wording remains materially narrower than the headline.
The operative factual allegation reported is - The solicitor “repeatedly asked a litigant in person for her contact details and passed them to his client.”

That is a very different formulation from:

The solicitor unlawfully hired a private investigator”; or
The tribunal held that instructing an investigator was itself misconduct.”

From the material currently available, the article appears to do three things rhetorically:

1. identify a colourful surrounding fact (“private investigator”)
2. elevate it into the headline
3. compress the actual misconduct findings into a shorthand narrative.

Legally and evidentially, those are not the same thing.

The article does not appear to provide:

The tribunal’s pleaded allegations.
The exact SDT findings.
Any quotation from the judgment stating that “hiring an investigator” was the offending act.

Instead, the factual chain described publicly appears to be something closer to:
The solicitor obtained/passed on personal contact details
The tribunal found professional misconduct connected to that conduct
The journalist summarised the episode as “solicitor who hired private investigator”.

That is an inferential journalistic framing, not necessarily the legal gravamen of the SDT decision.
There is also an important professional-regulatory distinction here.

Hiring a private investigator is not inherently improper in England and Wales.
Solicitors and litigants can lawfully instruct private investigators.

WAPI are writing to the Law Gazette seeking a clarification on the inclusion of the PI in this article.

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

SDT finds sole practitioner repeatedly asked litigant in person for her contact details and passed them to his client.

06/05/2026

Data (Use and Access) Act 2025: five key changes

NEWS - “without comment”

Data (Use and Access) Act 2025: five key changes for businesses
May 05. 2026

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (DUAA) became law on 19 June 2025, bringing important reforms to the UK's data protection regime, including changes to the powers and composition of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), the UK's information law regulator. Implementation of the DUAA is taking place in phases, with many provisions taking effect on 5 February 2026. A full list of key provisions coming into force can be found here.

This article focuses on new provisions under DUAA amending the UK GDPR (concerning the processing of personal data) that may be of particular interest to businesses.

The DUAA introduces a seventh lawful basis for processing personal data under Article 6(1) of the UK GDPR: "recognised legitimate interests" (RLI).
The categories of processing that qualify as RLIs are set out in a new Annex 1 to the UK GDPR and include:

processing necessary for national security, public security and defence purposes;
processing necessary for the detection, investigation or prevention of crime;
responding to requests from bodies acting in the public interest, where the processing is for purposes laid down in law; and
processing necessary for the safeguarding of vulnerable individuals.

Crucially, where a controller relies on an RLI, it is not required to carry out a balancing test (ie a legitimate interests assessment weighing the controller’s interests against those of the data subject). Processing must still be necessary and must comply with the wider principles of the UK GDPR, including transparency and data minimisation.

The DUAA also codifies a non-exhaustive list of personal data processing activities that may qualify under the existing legitimate interests basis including direct marketing, intra-group sharing for internal administrative purposes, and ensuring the security of network and information systems. A full legitimate interests assessment continues to be required for these activities.

Businesses sharing personal data with the police or other public authorities in connection with crime prevention or safeguarding may now be able to rely on an RLI, removing the need for a balancing test before making the disclosure. Controllers should review their records of processing activities and privacy notices to identify where reliance on an RLI may simplify compliance. Unfortunately, though (for those seeking efficiencies in their compliance work) many commercial processing activities, a legitimate interests assessment will still be required; the RLI basis is narrow in scope.

The DUAA’s reforms are being introduced on a rolling basis. The following changes are still to come:

19 June 2026: new complaints procedure as outlined above.
Later in 2026: ICO governance reforms and transition to the new 'Information Commission' structure. Updated ICO guidance is expected.

Full Article: https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/data-use-and-access-act-2025-five-key-changes-for-businesses/

Farrer & Co LLP
+44 (0)20 3375 7441

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)
www.WAPI.org

Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

Address

180 Piccadilly
London
W1J9HG

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when WAPI - World Association of Professional Investigators posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share