106
IPCO Annual Report 2017
15. Engagement with the
Investigatory Powers
Tribunal and other bodies
15.1
IPCO and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) are the two principal oversight bodies for
investigatory powers, discharging different, but complementary, functions. When requested,
IPCO works closely with the IPT, in an effort to ensure that the exercise and performance of
investigatory powers are at an appropriate standard and that individuals adversely affected
by the inappropriate or incorrect use of these powers are in a position to obtain redress.
15.2
When an error in the acquisition and use of communications data is of a serious nature
or when individuals have been affected by a wilful or reckless failure during the acquisition
of communications data by a public authority, the IPC has the opportunity to inform those
affected that they are entitled to make an application to the IPT. When inspectors from IPCO
suspect an error or serious failure has occurred, they will undertake a detailed review of the
available material and prepare a report for the IPC. For this purpose, the relevant authority
is required to provide all such assistance and information as necessary.
15.3
If the IPC determines that an individual ought to be informed in this way, sufficient
information should be disclosed to enable him or her to engage effectively with the IPT.
There were notifications of this kind in eight cases in 2017. It is to be observed that in the
majority of instances when the IPC notified an affected person, the public authority had
already provided information as to the role of the IPT. It is also of note that not all those
notified make an application to the IPT.
15.4
The IPC is obliged to provide the Tribunal with all such assistance as the IPT requires,
including disclosing records and giving an opinion on any matters before the IPT. Assistance
of this kind was provided on a number of occasions during 2017, and in particular in case
IPT/15/110/CH, which related to the acquisition and use by the intelligence agencies of
bulk communications data (pursuant to section 94 directions) and of bulk personal data.
The issue in the case related to the lawfulness of the acquisition regimes. The acquisition
of bulk personal data was first publicly avowed in March 2015, and of bulk communications
data in November 2015. The majority of the relevant material related to the period before
the creation of IPCO and a significant amount of work was required to identify and disclose
any relevant material from the archives of our predecessor organisations. In addition, we
responded to numerous requests for clarification or additional information.
15.5
Within the same litigation, the IPT requested IPCO’s assistance in verifying the results of
numerous searches the claimants had requested the agencies undertake as part of the
discovery process, in order to determine the extent of particular types of data that had been
acquired (e.g. communication addresses and travel information). This work took a number
of inspectors several days to complete and resulted in a detailed report.
15.6
When consistent with our statutory responsibilities and any limitation on the disclosure
of information, and when IPCO’s resources reasonably permit, we have assisted other
third parties and statutory bodies. This work has included assisting Her Majesty’s
Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Office for Police Conduct on
matters within their jurisdiction.