BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
therefore, it would appear that the retention periods were significantly
shorter than the two-year maximum retention period.
404. Finally, section 15(3) of RIPA and paragraph 7.8 of the IC Code
required that every copy of intercept material (together with any extracts
and summaries) be destroyed securely as soon as retention was no longer
necessary for any of the section 5(3) purposes (see paragraphs 79 and 96
above).
405. In the Liberty proceedings, the IPT considered the arrangements for
the retention of material and its destruction and found them to be adequate
(see paragraph 50 above). The Court also considers that the “above the
waterline” arrangements setting out the circumstances in which intercept
material had to be erased or destroyed were sufficiently clear. However, in
its view it would have been desirable for the shorter retention periods
identified by the Government in the course of the present proceedings to
have been reflected in the appropriate legislative and/or other general
measures.
‒ 7. Supervision
406. Supervision of the section 8(4) regime was primarily carried out by
the IC Commissioner, although according to that Commissioner a “critical
quality assurance function [was] initially carried out by the staff and
lawyers within the intercepting agency or the warrant-granting department”,
who provided independent advice to the Secretary of State and performed
important pre-authorisation scrutiny of warrant applications and renewals to
ensure that they were (and remained) necessary and proportionate (see
paragraph 170 above).
407. The IC Commissioner was independent of the executive and the
legislature, and had to have held high judicial office. His principal duty was
to review the exercise and performance, by the relevant Secretaries of State
and public authorities, of the powers under Part 1 (and to a limited extent
Part 3) of RIPA and he oversaw an inspection regime that enabled him to
carry out independent oversight of how the law was applied. He regularly
reported on his activities, on a half-yearly basis, to the Prime Minister, and
prepared an annual report which was placed before both Houses of
Parliament. In addition, after each inspection a report was sent to the head
of the inspected agency which contained formal recommendations and
which required the agency to report back within two months to confirm
whether the recommendations had been implemented or what progress had
been made. His periodic reports have been published from 2002, and from
2013 they were published in full with no confidential annexes. Furthermore,
section 58(1) of RIPA imposed a statutory obligation on every public
official in an organisation within the IC Commissioner’s remit to disclose or
to provide to him all documents or information as might be required to
enable him to carry out his functions (see paragraphs 135 and 136 above).
122