KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
49
rise to interception, discussed in the preceding paragraph, give guidance as
to the categories of persons who are likely, in practice, to have their
communications intercepted. Finally, the Court notes that in internal
communications cases, the warrant itself must clearly specify, either by
name or by description, one person as the interception subject or a single set
of premises as the premises in respect of which the warrant is ordered (see
paragraphs 40 to 41 above). Names, addresses, telephone numbers and other
relevant information must be specified in the schedule to the warrant.
Indiscriminate capturing of vast amounts of communications is not
permitted under the internal communications provisions of RIPA
(cf. Liberty and Others, cited above, § 64). The Court considers that, in the
circumstances, no further clarification in the legislation or the Code of the
categories of persons liable to have their communications intercepted can
reasonably be required.
161. In respect of the duration of any telephone tapping, the Act clearly
stipulates, first, the period after which an interception warrant will expire
and, second, the conditions under which a warrant can be renewed (see
paragraph 50 to 51 above). Although a warrant can be renewed indefinitely,
the Secretary of State himself must authorise any renewal and, upon such
authorisation, must again satisfy himself that the warrant remains necessary
on the grounds stipulated in section 5(3) (see paragraph 51 above). In the
context of national security and serious crime, the Court observes that the
scale of the criminal activities involved is such that their planning often
takes some time. Subsequent investigations may also be of some duration,
in light of the general complexity of such cases and the numbers of
individuals involved. The Court is therefore of the view that the overall
duration of any interception measures will depend on the complexity and
duration of the investigation in question and, provided that adequate
safeguards exist, it is not unreasonable to leave this matter for the discretion
of the relevant domestic authorities. The Code explains that the person
seeking the renewal must make an application to the Secretary of State
providing an update and assessing the value of the interception operation to
date. He must specifically address why he considers that the warrant
remains necessary on section 5(3) grounds (see paragraph 54 above).
Further, under section 9(3) RIPA, the Secretary of State is obliged to cancel
a warrant where he is satisfied that the warrant is no longer necessary on
section 5(3) grounds (see paragraph 52 above). There is also provision in
the Act for specific factors in the schedule to the warrant to be deleted
where the Secretary of State considers that they are no longer relevant for
identifying communications from or to the interception subject (see
paragraph 53 above). The Code advises that the duty on the Secretary of
State to cancel warrants which are no longer necessary means, in practice,
that intercepting agencies must keep their warrants under continuous review