IPCO Annual Report 2017
Law enforcement:
4.43
The general approach of law enforcement agencies, as reflected in the authorisations
individually inspected, strongly indicate that forces are appropriately evaluating the value
of material that is available online and what, if anything, it will add to an investigation.
During the inspections, there was reassuring evidence that the authorities routinely consider
the public’s right to privacy in this context. The management oversight arrangements and
associated policies generally indicate that appropriate safeguards are in place to ensure
online surveillance activities are proportionate. It was equally apparent that forces are
mindful of the speed at which intrusion can escalate during an online surveillance operation.
Non-RIPA Surveillance by Law enforcement and Local authorities
4.44
On occasion, public authorities conduct ‘non-RIPA’ surveillance because an authorisation,
whether directed or intrusive, is unavailable under the Act. This could include, for example
when the police, by consent, seek to deploy a camera within the house of a vulnerable
person in order to investigate allegations of doorstep ‘scams’. Authorities need to be careful
in these circumstances, to ensure that the activity is appropriately overseen. This will often
include implementing a non-statutory authorisation process that runs in parallel to any RIPA
approvals.25 We will review the adequacy of these arrangements throughout 2018. The IPC
does not seek in any way to discourage ‘non-RIPA’ surveillance but instead public authorities
should usually follow a RIPA-style approach in these circumstances.
25 The Investigatory Powers Tribunal provided clear guidance (IPT/11/129/CHIS; IPT/11/133/CHIS; and IPT/12/72/CHIS) that where no
authorisation is capable of being granted in such circumstances public authorities should closely mirror the procedures that would have
been used if an authorisation could have been obtained.
31