Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - March 2015
6.12 Proportionality pervades human rights jurisprudence and is a thread which runs
through RIPA 2000. Every application for an interception warrant must address it explicitly.
Secretaries of State have to address proportionality when deciding whether to issue an
interception warrant. In doing so they have to balance (a) the necessity to engage in
potentially intrusive conduct and (b) the anticipated amount and degree of intrusion.
The judgment has to consider whether the information sought could reasonably be
obtained by less intrusive means. This is explicit for interception (section 5(4)). Warrants
are refused, or never applied for, where it is judged that the necessity does not outweigh
the intrusion.
Interception Warrants
6.13 All interception warrants are for the interception of communications (access to
content) and the acquisition of related communications data. Section 5(6)(a) says that
the conduct authorised by an interception warrant shall be taken to include all such
conduct (including the interception of communications not identified by the warrant) as
it is necessary to undertake in order to do what is expressly authorised or required by
the warrant.
6.14 Applications for interception warrants should contain the information included
in Paragraph 4.2 or 5.2 of the code of practice. They contain detailed explanations and
supporting information including specific sections about the protection of privacy, to
help the Secretary of State assess the merits of the application.
6.15 Interception warrants have an initial duration of 6 months where the statutory
purpose is national security or economic well-being but 3 months where the statutory
purpose is serious crime (section 9(6)). They cease to have effect at the end of the period
unless they are renewed.
6.16 The Secretary of State may personally renew an interception warrant before the
end of its validity period but only if he or she believes that it continues to be necessary for
a statutory purpose (section 9(2) and paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14 of the code of practice).
Applications for renewals must justify the necessity for renewal, giving an assessment of
the intelligence value of the interception to date. Renewal takes effect from the date on
which the Secretary of State signs the renewal instrument.
6.17 The Secretary of State is required to cancel an interception warrant if satisfied that
it is no longer necessary for the authorised purpose (section 9(3) and paragraph 4.16 of
the code of practice). This in practice means that the interception agencies should keep
their warrants under continuous review and apply to cancel any warrant that is no longer
necessary. In practice, cancellation instruments will be signed by a Senior Official on
behalf of the Secretary of State (paragraph 4.16 of the code of practice).
6.18 Exceptionally a warrant may be issued in an urgent case by a Senior Official if it is
expressly authorised by a Secretary of State (section 7(1)(b), 7(2)(a) and paragraph 4.6 of
www.iocco-uk.info
21