2011 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
Although outright refusal to sign authorisations was rare, the Secretary of State did on occasions
send submissions back for further information. I was also pleased to hear from others the extent
to which the Secretary of State was willing to be contacted by staff out of hours to seek oral
authorisations in particularly urgent and important cases when a physical authorisation was not
possible.
6.6. Summary of Lawful Intercept Compliance
It is my view, based on the range of checks I undertake as commissioner, that those agencies
and departments which I oversee are compliant with the legislation. I have observed, both this
year and during previous years, that questions concerning the strength of the intelligence case,
compliance with legalities and ethics are posed at every stage of the warrant application process.
Through my meetings with officers involved in interception, in addition to Secretaries of State
and Scottish Ministers, I am able to form the view that all those involved act with integrity and
in a highly ethical manner.
That is not to say errors cannot occur during complex investigations involving the co-ordination
of the interception process across many agencies. The number of errors reported to me has
increased from 27 in 2010 to 42 in 2011. The in-depth nature of error reports I have received
during the year, supported when necessary by in-depth explanations during inspections, allows
me to conclude that none of the errors reported were malicious or deliberate. Each error
involved some kind of human error or system-related problem. I have been assured that any
intelligence obtained through erroneous means was destroyed.
Any increase in errors is regrettable and I have stressed to those involved the importance of
reminding staff of the need to comply with the legislation and to reform procedures where
necessary to minimise the risk of errors being repeated in the future.
25