90
IPCO Annual Report 2017
14. Errors and Breaches
14.1
Errors and breaches – the terms are interchangeable for these purposes – refer to
circumstances in which the statutory or other regulatory provisions have been overlooked
or contravened.
14.2
Errors can have significant consequences for the rights of individuals who are adversely
affected (including vis-a-vis their privacy and family life). It is critical that they are identified,
because, amongst other things, this can help identify systemic problems along with individual
failings. A key objective for IPCO is to prevent recurrence (e. g. further unjustified intrusion
or the continuation of an unjustified operation) and the reporting process provides an
opportunity for those affected to seek redress at the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
14.3
It is essential that members of staff within the relevant authorities report errors as soon as
they become apparent. Transparency and openness underpin our ability to deliver oversight
in this area. In addition, IPCO investigates an authority’s compliance during our inspections,
identifying unreported errors and monitoring compliance with any remedial action which was
agreed or mandated for past incidents.
Investigatory Powers Act changes
14.4
The IPA defines a ‘relevant error’ [section 231(9)] as an error:
(a) by a public authority in complying with any requirements which are imposed on it by
virtue of this Act or any other enactment and which are subject to review by a Judicial
Commissioner, and
(b) of a description identified for this purpose in a code of practice under Schedule 7
14.5
The IPC has specific duties to inform affected parties of a serious error63 when this step is in
the public interest. There were similar provisions in relation to errors of a ‘serious nature’
in the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice 2015 which was
in force during the period under consideration. During 2017 the IPC notified 8 individuals
of a serious error.
14.6
The Home Office had not published the relevant revised codes of practice by the end of 2017,
and this report addresses errors in the context of earlier iterations of the codes. Moreover,
as already indicated, for most of the year oversight was conducted by IPCO’s predecessor
organisations. This report reflects that split in responsibility, not least because we do not
have the advantage of a single set of data covering the entire year.
63 see s.231 IPA