KENNEDY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
51
intervals to confirm that the justification for its retention remains valid (see
paragraph 55 above).
165. The Code also requires intercepting agencies to keep detailed
records of interception warrants for which they have applied (see
paragraph 56 above), an obligation which the Court considers is particularly
important in the context of the powers and duties of the Commissioner and
the IPT (see paragraphs 166 to 167 below)
166. As regards supervision of the RIPA regime, the Court observes that
apart from the periodic review of interception warrants and materials by
intercepting agencies and, where appropriate, the Secretary of State, the
Interception of Communications Commissioner established under RIPA is
tasked with overseeing the general functioning of the surveillance regime
and the authorisation of interception warrants in specific cases. He has
described his role as one of protecting members of the public from unlawful
intrusion into their private lives, of assisting the intercepting agencies in
their work, of ensuring that proper safeguards are in place to protect the
public and of advising the Government and approving the safeguard
documents (see paragraph 70 above). The Court notes that the
Commissioner is independent of the executive and the legislature and is a
person who holds or has held high judicial office (see paragraph 57 above).
He reports annually to the Prime Minister and his report is a public
document (subject to the non-disclosure of confidential annexes) which is
laid before Parliament (see paragraph 61 above). In undertaking his review
of surveillance practices, he has access to all relevant documents, including
closed materials and all those involved in interception activities have a duty
to disclose to him any material he requires (see paragraph 59 above). The
obligation on intercepting agencies to keep records ensures that the
Commissioner has effective access to details of surveillance activities
undertaken. The Court further notes that, in practice, the Commissioner
reviews, provides advice on and approves the section 15 arrangements (see
paragraphs 59 and 68 above). The Court considers that the Commissioner's
role in ensuring that the provisions of RIPA and the Code are observed and
applied correctly is of particular value and his biannual review of a random
selection of specific cases in which interception has been authorised
provides an important control of the activities of the intercepting agencies
and of the Secretary of State himself.
167. The Court recalls that it has previously indicated that in a field
where abuse is potentially so easy in individual cases and could have such
harmful consequences for democratic society as a whole, it is in principle
desirable to entrust supervisory control to a judge (see Klass and Others,
cited above, § 56). In the present case, the Court highlights the extensive
jurisdiction of the IPT to examine any complaint of unlawful interception.
Unlike in many other domestic systems (see, for example, the G 10 Law
discussed in the context of Klass and Others and Weber and Saravia, both