given my experience of, and responsibility for, the interception of
communications under that legislation. In paragraph 26 of my 2002 report I
detailed the first five establishments that I had visited and in paragraph 21 of my
2003 Report I detailed the next four establishments I visited together with one revisit. During 2004 I visited HM Prison Full Sutton, HM Prison Wandsworth and
HM Prison Maidstone.
26. For my visits there were three primary areas of inspection:
●
●
●
The methods utilised in the establishments for the interception of telephone
communications and postal communications.
A physical inspection of the interception of telephone communications and
the equipment utilised.
A physical inspection of the arrangements for the interception of postal
communications.
27. I was particularly concerned to ensure that all interception was carried out
lawfully and in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the Prison Rules made under the Prison Act
1952. When interception in prisons is carried out on behalf of the police in the
course of an investigation, then the primary responsibility for complying with the
legislation lies with the police. When it is carried out on behalf of the prison
authorities under the Prison Act and the Rules made under the Act, then the
responsibility for compliance lies with the prison.
28. After each visit I produced an individual report for the prison Governor and
Prison Service Headquarters detailing my findings. I do not propose to go into
any detail about these visits, or my findings, in this Annual Report. However, my
overall conclusion following these visits is that the arrangements for interception
in the establishments inspected has highlighted a number of inconsistencies in the
approach to interception work in prisons, and that the Prison Rules are not always
strictly complied with. These are issues which are being addressed by the Prison
Service and must continue to be addressed.
29. As I mentioned in paragraph 21 above, Inspectors have now been recruited
to undertake future inspection visits on my behalf. I will, of course, retain overall
responsibility for the conduct of these inspections and any follow-up action that
will be required.
Transfer of interception warrants between police forces
30. I was approached by an officer in a Scottish police force (force A) seeking
my view on the propriety of “transferring” to his force an interception warrant
obtained by, and held by, another Scottish police force (force B).
31. Force B obtained, through the Scottish Executive, an interception warrant
signed by the First Minister in Scotland for a target in their force area. The target
subsequently moved away from that address to reside in force A’s area. Force A
questioned whether force B should cancel the existing warrant thus requiring
force A to seek a fresh warrant for themselves or can responsibility for the
interception work merely be “transferred” between the forces with the existing
warrant left in place.
32. I understand the Scottish Executive was approached about this matter who
confirmed that, as far as they can establish, there is no precedent in Scotland for
“transferring” a warrant. My advice was that under section 5 of RIPA a fresh
warrant would be required – the existing one for force B being cancelled and a
new one obtained addressed to the Chief Constable of force A.
6