KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
19
72. In his 2007 report, The Commissioner commented on the importance
of interception powers in tackling terrorism and serious crime:
“2.9 I continue to be impressed as to how interception has contributed to a number
of striking successes during 2007. It has played a key role in numerous operations
including, for example, the prevention of murders, tackling large-scale drug
importations, evasion of Excise duty, people smuggling, gathering intelligence both
within the United Kingdom and overseas on terrorist and various extremist
organisations, confiscation of firearms, serious violent crime and terrorism. I have
provided fully detailed examples in the Confidential Annex to this Report. I think it is
very important that the public is re-assured as to the benefits of this highly intrusive
investigative tool particularly in light of the on-going debate about whether or not
intercept product should be used as evidence in a court of law.
...
7.1 As I said in my first Report last year, the interception of communications is an
invaluable weapon for the purposes set out in section 5(3) of RIPA. It has continued to
play a vital part in the battle against terrorism and serious crime, and one that would
not have been achieved by other means ...”
73. As regards errors by the relevant agencies in the application of
RIPA's provisions, he noted:
“2.10 Twenty-four interception errors and breaches have been reported to me
during the course of 2007. This is the same number of errors reported in my first
Annual Report (which was for a shorter period) and is a significant decrease in the
number reported by my predecessor. I consider the number of errors to be too high.
By way of example, details of some of these errors are recorded below. It is very
important from the point of view of the public that I stress that none of the breaches or
errors were deliberate, that all were caused by human error or procedural error or by
technical problems and that in every case either no interception took place or, if there
was interception, the product was destroyed immediately on discovery of the error.
The most common cause of error tends to be the simple transposition of numbers by
mistake e.g., 1965 instead of 1956. The examples that I give are typical of the totality
and are anonymous so far as the targets are concerned. Full details of all the errors and
breaches are set out in the Confidential Annex.”
74. According to the statistics in the report, on 31 December 2007,
929 interception warrants issued by the Home Secretary were in force.
5. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal
a. The establishment of the IPT, its powers and its procedures
75. The IPT was established under section 65(1) RIPA to hear
allegations by citizens of wrongful interference with their communications
as a result of conduct covered by RIPA. Members of the tribunal must hold
or have held high judicial office or be a qualified lawyer of at least ten
years' standing. Any person may bring a claim before the IPT and, save for
vexatious or frivolous applications, the IPT must determine all claims
brought before it (sections 67(1), (4) and (5) RIPA).