2013 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
Figure 9 Communications Data - 2013 Inspection Recommendations by Category
urgent
oral
8%
streamlining 6%
SPoC
15%
national priority
grading scheme 4%
record keeping 5%
notices &
authorisations
15%
errors 4%
other 2%
training 4%
DPs
12%
applicant
25%
4.42 Figure 9 shows the breakdown of the 2013 recommendations by category. Almost
70% of the recommendations fell into 4 key categories:
(1) Applicant. The majority of the recommendations in this category focused
on the necessity or proportionality justifications set out by the applicants.
The inspectors made recommendations in approximately a third of the public
authorities inspected around these two key principles as they could not be
satisfied in every instance that the applicants had sufficiently justified them.
One example might be that it was not clear how the request for data met the
section 22(2) necessity test as the criminal offences under investigation had
not been clearly set out in the application. Another example might be where
the data requested did not appear to be a proportionate response to the
matter under investigation as the applicant had failed to explain how the time
period was relevant or what they were aiming to achieve from obtaining that
data set and how that would benefit the investigation.
These issues did not affect all applications submitted by the public authority.
However they were prevalent enough across the samples examined for the
inspectors to consider that a recommendation was necessary. In such instances
the inspectors will seek further supporting documentation (such as case file,
policy logs etc.) or interview the applicant or DP to satisfy themselves that the
requests were necessary and a proportionate response.
31