2012 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
However the 74% reported is a reduction from last year when I reported that the DPs in 88%
of the police forces and LEAs were meeting this standard. Although this percentage should be
treated with caution as the public authorities being inspected are not the same every year, there
were serious compliance issues identified in this area in a small number of the police forces
which resulted in red recommendations being made. In three police forces, my inspectors were
concerned to find that a number of the DPs had not actually recorded any written considerations
when approving some of the applications and this constitutes non-compliance with Paragraph 3.7
of the Code of Practice. It was however clear in these cases that the DPs had actually approved
the requests.
My inspectors concluded that there was a good level of objectivity and independence in the
approvals process within specialist departments such as Special Branch (SB) and Professional
Standards Departments (PSDs), or if not, they found that Paragraph 3.11 of the Code of Practice
was being complied with. However, some compliance issues were identified in this area of the
process which resulted in amber recommendations. First, in 7 of the police forces the PSD
applicants were not naming the subjects of the investigation. Second, in 9 of the police forces the
PSD or SB applicants had not specified the crime / offence under investigation. These two points
are key parts of the necessity test and in these cases my inspectors challenged the necessity
of the requests. My inspectors were informed that in some of the instances separate verbal
briefings had been provided to DPs.This is unsatisfactory and there was no evidence of what the
briefings consisted of. My inspectors were provided with supplementary information supporting
the applications which led them to conclude that the requests met the necessity test. However,
as already outlined, it is an established principle that an application for communications data must
stand on its own and sufficient information must be included to enable the DP to make a decision
whether the request is necessary and proportionate. Amber recommendations were made in
this area to ensure that applicants properly justify the principle of necessity in their applications.
“it is an established principle that an application for communications data
must stand on its own and sufficient information must be included to
enable the DP to make a decision whether the request is necessary and
proportionate”
The urgent oral process is principally used to acquire communications data when there are
immediate threats to life, and usually this applies when vulnerable or suicidal persons are
reported missing, in connection with abduction or kidnap situations, or in relation to other
crimes involving serious violence. This is an important facility, particularly for police forces, and
the interaction between the SPoCs and the CSPs frequently saves lives. Good use is also being
made of the urgent oral process where there is an exceptionally urgent operational requirement,
and where the data will directly assist the prevention or detection of a serious crime, the making
of arrests, or the seizure of illicit material. In the reporting year 39,092 requests were orally
approved which represents an increase on last year’s figure of 35,109. Again 90% of the police
forces and LEAs were found to be achieving a good or satisfactory level of compliance in relation
to the overall management of the urgent oral process and the quality of the record keeping.
36