2011 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
“My inspections have found that a small number of local authorities have a lack
of knowledge and a poor understanding in relation to parts of the process... This
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 inspectors again looked at the use which local authorities had made of the communications
data acquired, as this is a good check that they are using their powers responsibly.They concluded
that effective use was being made of the data to investigate the types of criminal offences which
cause harm to the public, and many of which, if communications data were not available, would
be impossible to investigate and would therefore go unpunished. I would like to highlight an
example of how communications data is used by local authorities as this may provide a better
understanding of its importance to the criminal investigations that local authorities undertake.
The following example is based on an extract from Sandwell Council’s inspection report.
Case Study 14 – Sandwell Council use of Communications Data
Communications data was effectively used in an investigation into the activities of an
individual purporting to be a ‘faith healer’. The investigation commenced as a result of a
complaint received from a husband and wife.They could not conceive a child and had been
conned into paying the suspect large sums of money to remove black magic. Subscriber
data acquired in relation to a mailing address and telephone numbers identified the suspect
and his home address.This allowed a search warrant to be executed and as a result a large
amount of evidence was seized, including lists of customers, a mobile phone and pictures.
This led to a number of further victims being identified. Unfortunately most of the victims
were too scared to make a complaint, however a further three victims did agree to give
statements. At Wolverhampton Crown Court the defendant was found guilty of three
counts of fraud under the Fraud Act 2006, seven counts of procuring a valuable security
by deception contrary to section 20(2) of the Theft Act 1968 and one count of obtaining
property by deception contrary to section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. He was sentenced
to 18 months imprisonment. Examination of the defendant’s bank accounts, accounting
records and other non-declared income reveals that in the six years prior to this case, he
earned in excess of £4 million from his business as a ‘faith healer’. Further proceedings
are underway to recover monies illicitly obtained by the offender under the Proceeds of
Crime Act 2002.
7.5.4. Other public authorities
There are a number of other public authorities that are registered for the purpose of acquiring
communications data.These include the Serious Fraud Office, the Independent Police Complaints
Commission, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the Office of Fair Trading, to name just a
few.The full list of public authorities registered can be found in the RIPA (Communications Data)
Order 2010 (No. 480). These public authorities are restricted both in relation to the statutory
purposes for which they can acquire data and the types of communications data they can acquire.
45