Actually, while it may be a &quot;spying oriented Court&quot;, there should have absolutely no surprise here.<p>(EDIT: To be clear: I find this spying disgusting, but that does not change the fact that there was no good legal basis for assuming MPs were somehow protected)<p>The idea that MPs were above being spied on had no basis in law whatsoever. The only reason some people believed this was that Wilson said so, and nobody challenged the fact that no law was passed to actually prevent the security services from carrying out such spying. But the public statements of the prime minister has no legal standing whatsoever to set policy for government departments.<p>That MPs for decades have believed that the word of a politician not packed up by actual laws, or even actual government policies passed on to the security services, would in any way protect them is what is bizarre here.<p>On the upside, someone finally challenged it in court, rather than just blindly accept the &quot;of course the Wilson doctrine still stands&quot; nonsense.