in order to highlight the most serious errors which have impacted, or potentially
impacted upon individuals and to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy associated
with reporting of procedural error, particularly in relation to the police forces
and law enforcement agencies, and to bring more perspective and clarity to the
error reporting system. During the period October to December 2007 the number
of ‘reportable’ errors made by public authorities was 99 which illustrates that in
reality the level of intrusion upon innocent third parties is actually much less than
stated in previous reports. Nevertheless my Inspectors review these errors during
the inspections to ascertain why they occurred and how recurrence can be avoided,
and they work closely with the public authorities to ensure that errors are kept to
the absolute minimum.
3.11 With effect from October 2007 each public authority must also keep a log
of any ‘recordable’ errors which have occurred during the process of acquiring
communications data. Generally these are procedural errors relating to noncompliance with the Code of Practice but which do not affect its lawful entitlement
to acquire the data. I have already given one or two examples of these types of
error in the preceding paragraphs. These errors have to be recorded and the record
produced on inspections, as they are relevant to the inspection, and because the
errors may also indicate underlying problems within the systems and processes
for acquiring communications data which may require remedial attention. The
frequency of ‘recordable’ errors may indicate to an Inspector that the overall level
of compliance may not be quite as good as it should be and this is important.

Communications data and the work of the Inspectorate
during the period covered by this Report
Police Forces and Law Enforcement Agencies
3.12 There are 43 police forces in England & Wales; eight police forces in
Scotland; and the Police Service of Northern Ireland which are all subject to
inspection. Additionally my inspectors also inspect the British Transport Police;
Port of Liverpool Police; Port of Dover Police; Royal Military Police; Royal Air
Force Police; Civil Nuclear Constabulary; Ministry of Defence Police; and the
Royal Navy Police.
3.13 Law enforcement agencies comprise Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs;
the Serious Organised Crime Agency; Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement
Agency and the United Kingdom Border Agency.
3.14 In 2006 my inspectors completed the first phase inspections of the above
public authorities and on the whole they were satisfied that the authorities had
systems and processes in place which were fit for purpose and which ensured that
they were able to achieve a good level of compliance with the Code of Practice.
A number of the police forces have acquired new automated systems since then
or are in the process of re-developing existing ones to make them more efficient
and effective and, as indicated above, this has also helped to reduce the scope for
keying errors.
3.15 In 2007 my team of Inspectors commenced the Phase 2 inspection programme
and during the year they conducted 33 inspections of police forces. They also
inspected HMRC and SOCA for the second time. Four of the 33 inspections of
police forces were re-inspections which were carried over from the first phase.
The Inspectors felt there was a need for this because certain aspects of the systems
and processes were not fully compliant with the Code of Practice and not, I hasten
to add, because the forces concerned were doing anything unlawful. In each case
the force had implemented the recommendations from the previous inspection
and this had significantly improved the level of compliance.
3.16 During phase two of the inspections greater emphasis has been placed upon
the use which police forces and law enforcement agencies are making of the
communications data which they obtain. They have been required to demonstrate

9

Select target paragraph3