2011 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
Nevertheless, communications data must only be acquired for the purpose of preventing or
detecting crime and where there is an intention to gather evidence for use in legal proceedings.
It was clear that the predominant purpose for the application was not the prevention and / or
detection of crime, but was to enforce the catchment area element of the Council’s schools
admissions policy, which was not expressed to be supported by a criminal sanction.
It is important to point out that this application was made in 2009, prior to the ruling by the
Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) (July 2010) in relation to a similar case involving a surveillance
authorisation. The Council became aware of the IPT ruling and shortly afterwards disseminated
advice to their staff stating that RIPA powers would not be used for such investigations. It is
unfortunate that this application pre-dated the IPT ruling, however my inspector was informed
that the communications data acquired did not have an impact on the investigation.
“my inspectors found one instance where a local authority had inappropriately
used their powers under Part I, Chapter II of RIPA to acquire communications
data in relation to an investigation that did not meet the necessity criteria...The
above case, although extremely regrettable, is the first and only instance that my
inspectors have found in the 212 individual local authority inspections that have
been conducted since 2006.Thousands of applications have been scrutinised since
the start of the inspection regime and therefore the evidence that local authorities
are frequently using their powers inappropriately is just not there”
I am aware that some sections of the media have been very critical of local authorities in the
past and there are allegations that they often use the powers which are conferred upon them
under RIPA inappropriately. The above case, although extremely regrettable, is the first and only
instance that my inspectors have found in the 212 individual local authority inspections that have
been conducted since 2006. Thousands of applications have been scrutinised since the start of
the inspection regime and therefore the evidence that local authorities are frequently using their
powers inappropriately is just not there.
I still remain unconvinced that the Government’s proposal to require all local authorities to obtain
the approval of a magistrate before they can use these powers will have much impact other than
to introduce unnecessary bureaucracy into the process and increase the costs associated with
acquiring the data. I do however welcome the Government’s proposals to close the loophole
through which local authorities are able to use other powers (such as the Social Security and
Fraud Act 2001) to acquire communications data. Such other powers are not subject to the same
level of scrutiny or oversight.
My inspections have found that a small number of the local authorities have a lack of knowledge
and a poor understanding in relation to parts of the process.This is evident from the fact that the
local authorities account for 9% of the reportable errors, even though they are making only 0.4%
of the overall requests. However in my view, this finding highlights that if local authorities decide
to continue to go it alone rather than use the NAFN SPoC service, there is a need for further
training to be provided to local authority SPoC staff. My Chief Inspector has recently taken steps
to ensure that local authorities are aware of the overall findings from the inspections.
44