90
IPCO Annual Report 2018
Case study: inspection
We had noted poor compliance standards in a local authority. In this case, the
recommendations from our previous inspection had not been discharged appropriately. We
noted that the corporate oversight was almost non-existent. From our initial inspection, we
were not confident that covert tactics ought to have been used in certain scenarios, or that they
had been properly authorised.
Our second inspection, however, found a refreshed approach to the management, training and
ongoing oversight of the RIPA processes. We examined a new authorisation, which we judged
to demonstrate the council’s confidence to appropriately and compliantly use RIPA powers. The
authorisation was for a Trading Standards officer to act as a CHIS.
We made suggestions for improvement in relation to the casework but were satisfied that the
investigation was appropriate and that the CHIS was properly authorised.
13.11
We have been disappointed that responses to desktop inspections have occasionally been
late or incomplete. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we have found that respondents who are newer
in role, and those working at authorities which use the powers infrequently, typically
provide less clear and comprehensive responses than others. However, this limits the level
of confidence we have in those authorities; we believe that those authorities that do not
regularly engage with oversight are more likely to establish poor or inefficient compliance
practices in the future. In 2018, we conducted one physical follow up to a
remote (desktop) inspection because we were not satisfied that the response given
demonstrated adequate compliance.
13.12
The use of directed surveillance has increased marginally in 2018 across local authorities,
as shown at figure 14.
350
309
300
250
233
200
150
100
50
0
2017
2018
Figure 14: Directed surveillance applications made by local authorities in 2017
and 2018