IPCO Annual Report 2017
1.4
In one sense, therefore, this Preface contains an apology and an excuse. This 2017 Report
has undoubted limitations, mainly as a consequence of the difficulties I have just described.
Most particularly, it is uneven as regards the content on the different investigative powers
and there is a lack of balance between the security services, on the one hand, and the law
enforcement agencies, on the other. This is particularly evident because we have structured
the Report around the different types of investigatory powers, in part to reflect the unified
approach to oversight that is to be adopted. Although our inspectors have different areas of
expertise, we will ensure the boundaries between the three precursor organisations are not
replicated within IPCO.
1.5
In what follows, we have attempted to provide relevant background information and a
summary description of each of the powers.
1.6
Although there was some concern as to whether IPCO would be ready to begin operating on
1 September 2017, and whether we would delay the security and law enforcement agencies
in their work, I am confident that on our record to date we have dispelled those anxieties. I
have received no complaints that the applications for warrants have been handled inefficiently,
and we have complied with – indeed, we routinely and significantly exceed – the agreement
as to the length of time the Judicial Commissioners will take to resolve the applications.
There has been no suggestion that the arrival of IPCO has hampered the law enforcement
and security agencies in their work and I am delighted at the arms-length but cooperative
relationship that has been developed with all the organisations for which we have oversight
responsibility. I am very grateful for the generous approach of all and the considerable
assistance that was provided in helping set up this new organisation. The Home Office, the
Foreign Office, the Security Services and all the law enforcement agencies have been highly
co-operative. The practical and administrative support, along with the many extremely
effective briefings that were laid on for the Judicial Commissioners and our staff, have been
time consuming for those involved in providing this help and of incalculable benefit to IPCO.
1.7
Although in 2017 I was principally focused on meeting the domestic public authorities
who utilise investigatory powers, during October I led a team from IPCO to the ‘Five‑Eyes’
Conference in Ottawa in Canada (the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada
and New Zealand), which was an extremely useful first step in establishing what I hope
will be a lasting and mutually supportive relationship between the Oversight Bodies
in our closely-allied countries. I gave a speech in Washington at the Centre for a New
American Security. I visited the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and I met with
various representatives of the American intelligence Community, including the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. In November I visited
the Dutch Oversight Body (CTIVD), as the first instalment in a series of meetings with the
oversight bodies of EU countries.
1.8
It has been during 2018 that my engagement with international bodies, the media and
civil society has developed but it is to be noted that we involved key representatives from
civil society in the induction and training programme for the Judicial Commissioners in
November 2017.
1.9
Overall, I have been extremely pleased at what IPCO achieved in 2017, and I am cautiously
optimistic that, with the considerable assistance of others, we laid foundations for the
successful oversight of investigatory powers in the years to come.
7