72
IPCO Annual Report 2018
11.32
We inspect property interference alongside RIPA powers and generally find a good level
of compliance with the CoP. These powers are used less commonly than RIPA techniques
but remain a central pillar of our inspection programme. Broadly, the use of property
interference authorisations has decreased over the past decade, but it has remained at a
similar level in recent years. We would expect this to continue despite the introduction of
the IPA, which will include some activities which would previously have been authorised
under the Police Act.
2009
2,705
2010
2,701
2011
2,646
2012
2,440
2013
2,689
2014
2,091
2015
2,070
2016
1,842
2017
1,937
2018
1,846
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Figure 3: Property interference applications since 2009
11.33
Applications to conduct property interference are routinely reviewed internally by the
CAB and the AO, who will be of Superintendent rank, before being presented to the Senior
Authorising Officer (SAO), the Chief Constable or Deputy Chief Constable. The quality of
documentation is therefore usually consistent and of a high standard.
11.34
Non-urgent authorisations are notified to a Judicial Commissioner (JC) who will, on
occasion, raise questions or concerns. We have found through inspections that the SAO and
CAB will initiate lessons learnt from any comments they receive and so we have found the
judicial review process to be successful in identifying and eliminating minor issues.
11.35
During our inspections, we examine a selection of property interference applications and
authorisations. Due to the low volume at smaller authorities, we will often review all such
applications on an inspection. This gives the opportunity to discuss issues that may be
novel to the authority in question but which we have seen regularly at larger-volume users.
This process establishes consistency in approach across law enforcement and gives us a
high level of confidence in the level of compliance in place.
11.36
We inspect urgent authorisations, which are normally documented within the LEAs using an
urgent oral booklet or similar manual system. We inspect whether the contemporary notes
address the necessary statutory considerations, including to document the nature of the
interference and the case for urgency.