IPCO Annual Report 2018
Q6: The number of authorisations under section 7 of the Intelligence Services Act (1994) made
in tandem with cases considered under the Guidance
As noted above in relation to Ministerial considerations, figures in this area risk oversimplifying
and therefore misleading the public in the absence of proper context. In particular many
section 7 authorisations provide authority to conduct a suite of actions, and conversely section
7 authorisations may be used collectively and in tandem with other authorisations such that
one operation of activity may be authorised by multiple authorisations. It is worth noting
additionally that the existence of a section 7 authorisation does not discharge the officer’s
obligations with respect of the Consolidated Guidance, and the officer in the field must be
expected to continue to assess and make judgements in relation to the assessment of the risk of
mistreatment or torture as the operation continues. Details of how section 7 is used in relation
to the Consolidated Guidance are published in the ISC’s report following the Detainee Inquiry.
It is worth commenting on the misapprehension that section 7 is used to authorise unlawful
acts, including torture and CIDT. IPCO has previously noted that these acts are contrary to
International, European and UK law.
Q7: Details of the statistical sampling process, and IPCO’s rationale for statistical significance
Previous Commissioners alluded to a sampling process through which a proportion of the
‘Detainee Grid’ were examined. IPCO’s oversight of the Consolidated Guidance does not follow
this model and does not seek to review a statistically representative sample of activity relevant
to the Consolidated Guidance. IPCO’s oversight in this area is risk-based and covers a greater
depth of information than was available to previous Commissioners. We have developed a
cross-UKIC inspection model which allows us to track through casework between the agencies
and to inspect companion documentation at the MOD.
Given the comments above about the inaccuracy of statistics in this area, it would be impossible
to set out our oversight as a proportion of the whole. We seek to develop a high level of
confidence in the methodology applied in relation to the Guidance, including by challenging the
central legal and compliance teams, and at times conduct ‘deep dive’ reviews of particular cases
or stations. We believe that this process gives us a more robust oversight model than would be
possible through attempting to identify and examine a statistically representative sample.
65