30
IPCO Annual Report 2017
Online surveillance
4.37
Local authority guidance on surveillance does not always address how investigators should
use social media or where they may need an authorisation. The 2018 revised Home Office
code of practice for surveillance contains helpful advice local authorities can incorporate into
their policy documents and training.
4.38
Our inspectors were particularly impressed by Durham County Council, whose senior
responsible officer commissioned a helpful audit across the organisation on the ‘Use of social
media in Covert Investigations’, to evaluate and report on whether their system is adequate
and appropriate for this purpose. We commend this approach.
Compliance challenge for local authorities who infrequently use their powers
4.39
In general, the compliance problems that were identified rarely amount to more than a failure
to review or cancel authorisations, or instances when the authorisation was poorly articulated.
4.40
However, we conducted an extraordinary inspection of one local authority in relation to
surveillance that had been authorised to obtain evidence for family court proceedings. The
council appointed a private investigator to identify whether the parents were associating with
each other. The judge in the case did not criticise the appointment of the private investigator
but was concerned that the council had not obtained an authorisation under RIPA to conduct
this surveillance. It became apparent that the relevant council officers were unsure of
the correct procedures and had not been trained in the surveillance application process.
They were unaware of both the council’s RIPA guidance and the identities of the Senior
Responsible Officer and RIPA Co-ordinator. The officers sought assistance from the legal team
but the advice they received failed to address the RIPA implications of this activity.
As a result, the officers attempted to gain authorisation for the activity without proper
consideration of the relevant legislation. This could have had a serious impact on the
lawfulness of undoubtedly necessary investigative work, in the context of important court
proceedings. We asked the council urgently to review their internal training and awareness
policies to ensure this did not happen again. It goes without saying that ignorance of
the legislative requirements and the lack of properly formulated policy and procedural
arrangements will constitute serious failings on the part of an authority.
4.41
Instances of a serious lack of knowledge amongst operational officers, albeit rare, are not
confined to council officers as a recent IPT ruling in relation to unauthorised surveillance by
the British Transport Police has demonstrated.24 Appropriating training and supervision is
required in all public authorities who have surveillance powers available to them.
4.42
We are encouraged to see that many local authorities have established table top exercises,
regular training regimes and senior staff walkabouts to raise awareness. Merseyside Fire
& Rescue Service, North Ayrshire Council, Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council,
Torridge District Council and Durham County Council, have been proactive in this area. We
are confident these tactics will provide additional safeguards against inadvertent unlawful
activity in the future.
24 Gary Davis vs British Transport Police https://www.ipt-uk.com/docs/Davies%20G%20Determination%20and%20Remedies.pdf