2011 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
2.
COMMISSIONER’S FOREWORD
I am required by Section 58 (4) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA, 2000) to
report to the Prime Minister ‘as soon as practicable after the end of each calendar year’ with
respect to the carrying out of my functions. Having undertaken this act annually since 2006, I
move now to my penultimate report, covering the period between 1st January to 31st December
2011.
Much has changed in interception and the use of communications data since I began as
commissioner in 2006. Changes have been caused by the advancement of communications
technology, and the increase in methods of communication available to members of the public.
Lawful interception and/or communications data acquisition remain crucial techniques for the
UK’s intelligence agencies, law enforcement bodies and selected other public authorities to use
in pursuit of their statutory objectives. I remain confident that they and the warrant-signing
Secretaries of State whom I oversee, take very seriously their responsibilities to comply with the
legislation.
In last year’s annual report, I responded to valuable feedback from amongst others the media and
members of the public. I was able to provide more detail than ever before on:
• the legislative basis underpinning the lawful interception of communications by those public
authorities with powers under RIPA.
• the warrantry authorisation process, including the role of the senior official, the department
of state and ultimately the Secretary of State
• case studies describing where lawful interception and communications data had played a
central role in achieving operational successes
• year-on-year changes in warrant numbers signed by the Home Secretary and Scottish Ministers
• year-on-year changes in communications data requests submitted by public authorities
• year-on-year changes in numbers of errors reported to me by public authorities in relation to
both lawful intercept and communications data; and
• as far as I was able to disclose them, the nature of the errors reported to me, and the actions
taken to minimise the risk of such errors being repeated in the future.
The report for 2010 was on the whole well received, and I report in similar depth this year. I
have repeated information which I believe is necessary in order that readers may understand the
use of lawful interception, communications data and my oversight without reference to previous
reports. I disclose the following additional information this year, which may assist readers to
understand my ultimate conclusion that public authorities are achieving a very good standard of
compliance subject to the issues described in this report.
• more detail on when and how my inspectors and I have conducted our scrutiny visits, whom
we have met and broad details of the kinds of cases and issues on which my formal and
informal input, and that of my inspectors, has been requested.
• more detail on the distinctions between the authorisation processes and oversight
mechanisms in relation to lawful interception (Part I, Chapter I, of RIPA) and the acquisition
of communications data (Part I, Chapter II of RIPA)
3