IPCO Annual Report 2018
we carry out at the security services. The complexity of their work and the range of powers they
exercise has the consequence that our inspectors often visit each of the three Agencies more than
once a month, and over the year we concentrate disproportionately on their activities. This is entirely
necessary and I am satisfied that the balance of reporting reflects an appropriate allocation of
resources.
I will not repeat or seek to summarise in this introduction the multiplicity of issues covered in detail
elsewhere in the report, but there are nonetheless a small number of key points I would wish to make.
The first full year of IPCO
The challenges of establishing the new team continued throughout 2018. We experienced lengthy
delays in recruitment, particularly in the time taken by the vetting process; the Inspectorate only
reached full strength in January 2019 and our much-needed policy and engagement teams only joined
during the summer of 2019. Even with these welcome developments, at the end of 2019, we do not
yet have a full team in place. This has undoubtedly had an impact on our ability to take the initiative in
a number of areas, especially in terms of our external communications and engagement, both of which
are important fields that undoubtedly need development. I am confident, however, that we will see
significant improvement in this context over 2020.
Much of our focus during 2018 was in preparing for the introduction of the double lock arrangements
for the use of the most intrusive powers. New processes were designed and tested and, as I indicated
last year, the JCs have had the benefit of an extensive training programme, engineered to give them
the best possible understanding of the range of powers utilised by the agencies and authorities. As this
was a year of transition, the statistics at the end of the report do not provide as full a picture as they
will in future years, but it is clear that there were only a few refusals by the JCs of the applications they
considered. It is critical that this should not be interpreted as a failure by the JCs to provide rigorous
scrutiny of the applications. Nothing could be further from the truth.
These applications only come to IPCO after there has been detailed, multi-layered consideration within
the organisation requesting the authorisation and, when applicable, the Warrant Granting Department.
In-house legal advice is regularly given and approval is required from either the Secretary of State or
a senior officer. These steps constitute a critical filtering process. Furthermore, when an application is
considered to be novel or contentious, the JCs and the warrant-granting departments are frequently
briefed in advance, at which stage preliminary, non-binding views of a general nature are often given as
to the proper and lawful approach to be taken by the agency or authority seeking authorisation before
any warrants are submitted for consideration. This process tends to ensure that unnecessary mistakes
are avoided in the applications. Our inspections have continually revealed the high level of challenge
provided by those in the Warrant Granting Departments (before the applications are put before the
Secretary of State) and by the authorising officers within the various relevant bodies. This means
that there has been detailed scrutiny of the applications by multiple individuals, including either the
Secretary of State or a senior officer, before the application is received by IPCO.
I have encouraged the JCs to seek clarification or additional information if they have questions or
concerns about a particular application. This process frequently involves discussions between the JCs
and IPCO’s legal team, assisted by the Inspectorate, with a certain amount of toing and froing with
the applicant body and, when relevant, the Warrant Granting Department. This process is carefully
controlled and properly documented to maintain the essential arms-length relationship, and it avoids
an unnecessary refusal when the substance of the application is lawful and all that is required is further
detail or an element of explanation, if this is available.
As a result, the applications, in their final form when considered by the JCs, have a high likelihood of
being approved. In my view, this reflects the strengths of the process rather than any kind of failure by
IPCO to uphold the necessary high standards of legality.
7