KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
13
Storage
6.7 Intercepted material, and all copies, extracts and summaries of it, must be
handled and stored securely, so as to minimise the risk of loss or theft. It must be held
so as to be inaccessible to persons without the required level of security clearance.
This requirement to store intercept product securely applies to all those who are
responsible for the handling of this material, including communications service
providers ...
Destruction
6.8 Intercepted material, and all copies, extracts and summaries which can be
identified as the product of an interception, must be securely destroyed as soon as it is
no longer needed for any of the authorised purposes. If such material is retained, it
should be reviewed at appropriate intervals to confirm that the justification for its
retention is still valid under section 15(3) of the Act.”
47. Specific guidance is given as to the vetting of those involved in
intercept activities in paragraph 6.9 of the Code:
“6.9 Each intercepting agency maintains a distribution list of persons who may have
access to intercepted material or need to see any reporting in relation to it. All such
persons must be appropriately vetted. Any person no longer needing access to perform
his duties should be removed from any such list. Where it is necessary for an officer
of one agency to disclose material to another, it is the former's responsibility to ensure
that the recipient has the necessary clearance.”
48. The Government's policy on security vetting was announced to
Parliament by the Prime Minister on 15 December 1994. In his statement,
the Prime Minister explained the procedure for security vetting and the
kinds of activities which would lead to the exclusion of an individual from
participation in work vital to the interests of the State.
49. The Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act
1994 impose further obligations on the heads of the security and intelligence
services to ensure the security of information in their possession.
d. Duration of an interception warrant
50. Section 9(1)(a) provides that an interception warrant for internal
communications ceases to have effect at the end of the “relevant period”
The “relevant period” is defined in section 9(6) as:
“(a) in relation to an unrenewed warrant issued in a case [issued] under the hand of a
senior official, ... the period ending with the fifth working day following the day of
the warrant's issue;
(b) in relation to a renewed warrant the latest renewal of which was by an
instrument endorsed under the hand of the Secretary of State with a statement that the
renewal is believed to be necessary on grounds falling within section 5(3)(a) [national
security] or (c) [economic well-being], ... the period of six months beginning with the
day of the warrant's renewal; and