Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - 2016
The main reason for DPs returning or rejecting applications (Figure 9) was that they were
not satisfied with the necessity or proportionality justifications given (52%). A significant
number of applications were returned because DPs were not satisfied with the overall
quality or clarity of the application (21%). Other reasons for rejection included the DPs
declaring that they were not independent of the investigation and requesting that the
application be forwarded to an independent DP for consideration (6%).
These application rejection rates are similar to those of previous years. It remains the
case that there is a significant variation between public authorities. Local practices may
account for these differences; for example, some police forces have people drafting
applications on behalf of investigators and the expertise of these dedicated people means
that their applications are often of a higher standard. Similarly, workflow systems which
are available to public authorities differ. One system may allow the SPoC officer to amend
an applicant’s submission where there is a minor technical discrepancy. Others do not,
which means that the SPoC has to return the application. On occasion, IOCCO identifies
high return rates which may, in part, be the result of a local policy which demands levels
of technical knowledge beyond those required by the Act. On these occasions, my
inspectors have reminded public authorities that applicants should merely describe what
they require to meet operational objectives and that it is the role of the SPoC to prescribe
the technical services which will meet those requirements.
Figure 9 breaks down the reasons why applications were returned for further development
or declined by the DP.
DP independence 6%
Necessity /
Proportionality
52%
Other 16%
12
clarity &
quality
21%
SPOC request return 5%
@iocco_oversight