IPCO Annual Report 2017
authorisation; (iv) there are effective retention, storage and destruction arrangements; (v) any
errors or breaches resulted from the activity; (vi) the intercepted material was examined
in a timely way; and (vii) keyword searches identify sensitive material that has been
incorrectly handled (e.g. solicitor or lawyer).
7.44
These searches enable IPCO to review whether the Secretary of State was provided with
an accurate picture.
7.45
Over the last 12 months, there have been a number of cases in which we have recommended
that a warrant was modified, required changes to be made to the operational practice in
order to safeguard privacy, directed that additional information is provided to the Secretary
of State either immediately or at the next renewal, or recommended cancellation.
Inspections reports
7.46
After each inspection, a comprehensive report is provided to the head of the intercepting
agency, setting out the inspectors’ findings and recommendations. Copies of the report are
sent to the relevant Secretary of State and the WGD. With the WGD inspections, the report
is provided to the relevant senior official and is copied to the Secretary of State.
7.47
The reports include an assessment of (i) whether the recommendations from the previous
inspection have been achieved; (ii) the number and type of interception documents
selected for inspection, including a list of the warrants; (iii) the warrants selected for further
examination; (iv) the errors or breaches reported during the inspection period; (v) the
retention, storage and destruction procedures; (vi) any policy or operational issues which the
agency or warrant granting departments raised during the inspection; (vii) how any material
subject to legal professional privilege, or other confidential material, has been handled; and
(viii) overall, whether there has been compliance with the legislation. Recommendations may
be made that are aimed at improving compliance and performance, in which case the agency
or department is required to respond within two months, detailing the progress that has
been made.
7.48
The reports also contain operational detail which cannot be disclosed because of the
statutory secrecy provisions contained in RIPA (and replicated in the IPA).
Findings
7.49
Put generally, interception is being conducted lawfully, in compliance with RIPA and the
relevant code of practice.
7.50
We made a total of 26 recommendations in our inspection reports; 24 of these related to the
interception agencies and two to the WGDs. These recommendations broadly fell under the
following categories:
a) Necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion. Some of these recommendations
concerned the need for greater clarity and detail in the application concerning any
potential collateral intrusion that might occur as a result of the interception activity
and how this would be managed. For example, to the extent that it is known whether
a phone line or internet connection is used by a number of people, when one or more
of whom is a target but the others are not of intelligence interest. The remainder of the
recommendations centred on the linked need for a more consistent approach when
assessing collateral intrusion, ensuring that this was appropriately re-assessed when
a warrant was being renewed.
47