Firstly, the UK doesn't have the same concept of constitutionality.
Secondly, this isn't a normal damages action; have a look at http://www.dataprotectioncompany.co.uk/8-dpc-news-articles/1... . It's a complaint to the relevant tribunal phrased in ECHR language. If the complaint is denied, there's an appeal to the court in Strasbourg. What happens there is harder to predict, but crucially it's in no way part of the UK government.
The full complaint can be found by googling "privacy international hacking case grounds". It references R(Bancoult)http://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/cases/r_bancoult.html , in which Wikileaks was ruled inadmissible, specifically to contradict it by saying that extensive discussion of the spying means it is no longer secret.
It also references the ironically named Liberty v. United Kingdom: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-... which relates to phone hacking back in 1999 under the previous legal regime. It's worth noting that that case (a) found the surveillance unlawful but (b) ordered the UK to ... pay £7500 costs. The new case has a request for an injunction against the UK doing it again. (It shouldn't normally be necessary to enjoin people from doing things once they have been found unlawful, but this is GCHQ we're dealing with)
Secondly, this isn't a normal damages action; have a look at http://www.dataprotectioncompany.co.uk/8-dpc-news-articles/1... . It's a complaint to the relevant tribunal phrased in ECHR language. If the complaint is denied, there's an appeal to the court in Strasbourg. What happens there is harder to predict, but crucially it's in no way part of the UK government.
The full complaint can be found by googling "privacy international hacking case grounds". It references R(Bancoult) http://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/cases/r_bancoult.html , in which Wikileaks was ruled inadmissible, specifically to contradict it by saying that extensive discussion of the spying means it is no longer secret.
It also references the ironically named Liberty v. United Kingdom: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-... which relates to phone hacking back in 1999 under the previous legal regime. It's worth noting that that case (a) found the surveillance unlawful but (b) ordered the UK to ... pay £7500 costs. The new case has a request for an injunction against the UK doing it again. (It shouldn't normally be necessary to enjoin people from doing things once they have been found unlawful, but this is GCHQ we're dealing with)