IPCO Annual Report 2018
obtaining data otherwise than for the purposes made available to them by the CoP. We will
monitor whether any further instances of this activity occur in 2019.
11.58
Another focus of interest during our inspections is the application of emergency provisions.
We scrutinise a higher proportion of urgent casework processed at LEAs, to ensure that the
requirements of the CoP are met and, specifically, that the exceptional nature of the urgent
requirement is clearly articulated on the current records. Because urgent applications will
continue to be conducted independently of OCDA, we will again review a high proportion of
urgent authorisations in 2019. We have recommended that steps should be taken to ensure
all applications submitted as National Priority Grading Scheme 2 comply with the CoP and
provide a clear explanation of the exceptionally urgent operational requirement.
11.59
We also considered the adequacy of provisions to ensure that the minimum necessary
intrusion is made into a target’s privacy and made a number of recommendations in this
regard. We have suggested that applications seeking data over an extended date range,
such as those targeting organised crime groups, should set out how the data will be used
and why a shorter period would not meet this requirement.
11.60
In one instance, we made a recommendation in relation to the articulation of statutory
purpose. The IPA introduces an increased focus on the purpose of obtaining intelligence,
which is a means of safeguarding data from misuse or use other than the intended purpose.
In some cases, we judge that additional training for staff would improve the consistency
and accuracy of records. We believe in this case that the training or guidance given to
applicants should be reviewed to ensure the distinction between the statutory purposes of
applicable crime, non-crime emergency welfare provisions, and that for identifying persons
who have died or are incapacitated, is properly understood.
11.61
Our inspections seek to confirm that the AO in each case is independent from the
operation. This is a requirement of the CoP intended to ensure that the authorising
individual’s scrutiny is objective. We have seen good evidence of this practice on our
inspections but, at one authority, we made the specific recommendation that the
authorising individuals should give greater consideration to the specific details of the
application at hand when completing their comments.
11.62
We noted at a different authority that applicants were able to select an AO when
submitting their application. This gives the option, technically, for the application to be
considered by one involved in the case. The applications selected for examination did not
identify any examples where this system has been abused but we have recommended that
the SRO must ensure that processes are followed to eliminate this possibility.
11.63
We saw good practices in the casework we scrutinised at one interception agency,
which documented bespoke considerations of the relevant details in each case. They
demonstrated well established practices for ensuring the independence of the AO but,
at some points, this has resulted in significant delays in obtaining the required data.
We advised that they could consider a more flexible approach without compromising
independence. In previous years, we have made recommendations to this topic at other
organisations and have seen improvements in efficiency as a result.
79