46
IPCO Annual Report 2017
Interception agency inspections
7.38
At a typical interception agency inspection we (i) review any action points or recommendations
from the previous inspection and assess the progress made in implementing them;
(ii) evaluate the systems in place for intercepting communications to ensure they are sufficient
for the purposes of the legislation and that all relevant records are kept; (iii) examine selected
interception applications to assess whether they were necessary and whether they fulfil the
proportionality requirements; (iv) interview case officers, analysts and linguists from selected
investigations or operations to assess whether the interception and the justifications for
acquiring the material were proportionate; (v) examine any urgent oral approvals to check the
process was justified and used appropriately; (vi) review those cases where communications
subject to legal privilege or other confidential information (e.g. journalistic or medical) have
been intercepted and retained, and cases where a lawyer is the subject of an investigation;
(vii) review the adequacy of the safeguards; (viii) investigate the procedures for the retention,
storage and destruction of intercepted material and related communications data; and
(ix) review the reported errors, including checking that the measures put in place to prevent
errors recurring are effective.
WGD inspections
7.39
There are broad similarities in our focus when inspecting the four main WGDs. We examine
the integrity of the authorisation process and the extent of the challenge the Secretaries of
State and their senior officials apply to warrant requests. The role of the WGD is to provide a
source of independent advice to the senior official and the Secretary of State, and it performs
valuable pre-authorisation scrutiny of warrant applications and renewals, particularly as
regards necessity and proportionality.
7.40
We inspect WGDs after the interception agencies for which they are responsible. This gives
us the chance to discuss findings and recommendations from the interception agencies’
inspections with the relevant WGD.
Inspection methodology
7.41
During our inspections of WGDs and the intercepting agencies we focus on the systems and
processes, which is usually a three stage process. We request a list of all the applications
for warrants since the last inspection. From this list, we select a sample that covers a
wide spectrum of different crime types and a range of threats to national security. We
additionally focus on applications of particular interest or sensitivity. Examples include
applications which have (i) resulted in an unusual degree of collateral intrusion, (ii) been
extant for a long period (so we can assess the continued necessity for interception),
(iii) been approved orally under the urgency procedure, or (iv) resulted in the interception
of legal or other confidential communications.
7.42
Having examined the paperwork, we identify those warrants, operations or stages of the
process where we need further information or clarification. The inspectors will interview
the relevant operational, legal or technical staff.
7.43
We examine the warrant documentation electronically whenever we have access to the
authorisation systems at the interception agencies. If possible, the inspectors conduct or
direct query‑based searches against the intercepted material and the reporting to test for
compliance. This identifies trends and patterns from the applications. The queries are designed
to elicit, amongst other things, whether (i) the intercepted material has been used or
analysed; (ii) the product has been utilised for the intended purpose; (iii) the intrusion has
been conducted consistently and, if not, why the operational team did not seek to cancel the