2011 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
Inspection Day (up
to 1 month later)
Brief by senior officials on threat and
emerging policy issues.
Reading through and scrutinising
authorisations. Pre-reading time can
be set aside to ensure commissioner
has had time to review all paperwork
related to authorisations prior to
inspection visit.
Follow-up stage
Where necessary, oral briefings by
case officers to detail intelligence case
behind the submissions and answer
commissioner’s questions on any
errors.
Meetings with Secretary of State.
Report of Inspections within Annual
Report.
Potential informal consultation
between agency and commissioner on
challenging legal or policy issues.
To provide commissioner with a general
operational overview as to the nature
of the threat in relation to which
applications for authorisations may be
sought.
Commissioner seeks to reassure himself
that throughout authorisation process
principles of necessity, proportionality
and other safeguards have been applied.
Specific focus on ensuring renewals are
being submitted in good time and that
urgent oral applications really are urgent.
Ensure getting best value from
commissioners’ expertise.
Characteristic of an effective relationship
between commissioner and Agencies.
Discussions with officials at
Department of State through whom
submissions go before reaching
Secretary of State.
In the course of my visit I seek to satisfy myself that those warrants selected fully meet the criteria
set out in RIPA, that proper procedures have been followed and that the relevant safeguards
within the Code of Practice have been adhered to. During the visits I not only review the actual
warrants and supporting paperwork, but, as and when necessary, discuss the rationale behind the
warrants with the officer concerned. I am also able to view the product of any interception that
may have been authorised. It is important to ensure that the facts justified the use of interception,
and that the principles of necessity and proportionality have been adhered to.
Throughout my 2011 visits, as in previous years, I continued to be impressed by the quality,
fairness, dedication and commitment of the personnel carrying out this work. Irrespective of the
level of threat, officers continue to show an intimate knowledge of the legislation surrounding
lawful interception, how it applies to their specific areas of work, and they are keen to ensure
they comply with the legislation and appropriate safeguards. The risk of defective applications
being approved in my opinion remains very low due to the high level of scrutiny that is applied to
each authorisation as it crosses a number of desks in the corresponding warrantry units of the
Home Office, Foreign Office, Ministry of Defence, Northern Ireland Office and Scottish Office,
before reaching the relevant Secretary of State or Scottish Minister.
15