Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - March 2015
the result of poorly completed applications where applicants had failed to articulate, for
example:
•
•
•
•
•
how a specific suspect was linked to the offence being investigated;
the credibility of the information linking a suspect to an offence;
the objective for acquiring data on those who appeared to be peripheral
witnesses or associates;
how the periods of data sought were relevant to pertinent events; or,
how the particular data set being requested linked to a specific investigative
objective.
Figure 12 Operational Reviews - Investigation Type
Type of Investigation
Murder (inc. attempt murder)
Drugs Supply
Robbery
Sexual Offences
Burglary (inc. aggravated burglary)
Human Trafficking / Slavery
Fraud
Prevention of terrorism
Kidnap
Theft
Misconduct in public office
Firearms
No. of operations
examined
15
7
7
5
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
7.65 My inspectors identified that communications data was frequently relied on to
provide both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. The communications data acquired
revealed suspects movements and tied them to crime scenes. It often led to other key
evidence being identified or retrieved. Links to previously unidentified offenders and
offences were revealed. Dangerous offenders were located and offences were disrupted
with the assistance of communications data. Patterns of communication provided evidence
of conspiracy between suspects. The data highlighted inconsistencies in accounts given
by suspects and corroborated the testimony of victims. The data determined the last
known whereabouts of victims and persons they had been in contact with. Similarly,
communications data assisted to eliminate key suspects or highlighted inconsistencies in
accounts given by victims.
www.iocco-uk.info
61