Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - March 2015
•
an overall assessment of the interception agency’s or WGD’s level of
compliance with RIPA.
6.50 I will describe some of the most frequent recommendations and a number of
other matters arising from these inspections later in this section of the report.
6.51 Number of inspections. My office has maintained the pattern of inspecting all
nine interception agencies and the four main WGDs twice yearly, making a total of 26
inspections. The length of each inspection depends on the volume of interception warrants
and the complexity of the particular interception agency’s operations. The inspections
of the larger or more complex interception agencies are conducted by an inspection
team of 2 or 3 and take place over 3 days twice-yearly. The inspections of the smaller
volume users are generally conducted by an inspection team of 2 and generally last 1 or
2 days twice-yearly. As a point of principle we inspect each WGD after the interception
agencies for which it is responsible. This provides an opportunity for my office to discuss
the findings and recommendations from the interception agencies’ inspections with the
WGD. In addition to the twice-yearly inspections there are a number of additional visits
and a large amount of correspondence throughout the year to follow up and review
progress against recommendations, discuss other issues or matters arising, or to conduct
investigations into errors.
6.52 Examination of warrants. My office inspects the systems in place for applying
for and authorising interception warrants. This usually involves a three-stage process:
•
•
•
First, to achieve a representative sample of warrants we select from across
different crime types and national security threats. In addition we focus on
those of particular interest or sensitivity, for example those which give rise
to an unusual degree of collateral intrusion, those which have been extant
for a considerable period (in order to assess the continued necessity for
interception), those which were approved orally, those which resulted in the
interception of legal or otherwise confidential communications, and so-called
‘thematic’ warrants. More detail on some of these areas will be provided in the
recommendations section of this report.
Second, we scrutinise the selected warrants and associated documentation in
detail during reading days which precede the inspections.
Third, we identify those warrants, operations or areas of the process where
we require further information or clarification and arrange to interview
relevant operational, legal or technical staff, and where necessary we require
and examine further documentation or systems in relation to those matters
during the inspections.
6.53 Samples. The total number of warrants specifically examined during the 26
interception inspections was 936. This figure equates to 58% of the number of extant
warrants at the end of the year and 34% of the total of new warrants issued in 2014. This
figure is considerably higher than the number examined last year and this is due in part to
the fact that we introduced a significant number of changes to the inspection procedures
30
@iocco_oversight