2012 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
Last year I reported that my inspectors found evidence of DPs in three police forces giving a
‘blanket’ or ‘rolling’ authority at the start of immediate threat to life incidents to obtain any
data necessary. My inspectors identified one such case this year in a police force. In this case
the DP had not given the requisite authority for the subsequent data that was acquired to be
obtained. Although this instance represents serious non-compliance, I am satisfied that it was
not a wilful or reckless failure. It is also important to recognise that it occurred in relation to
an exceptionally urgent case and that the persons involved in the process were working under
immense pressure in an attempt to save a life. Nevertheless, it is still very important to ensure
that the correct process is always applied and that the data is acquired in accordance with the
law. A red recommendation was given to the police force in this area.
“90% of the police forces and law enforcement agencies 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.”
My inspectors again found that a number of police forces and LEAs had misunderstood the
procedures for acquiring communications data based on lawful intercept product and as a
result the proper application process had not been followed. This misunderstanding resulted in
red recommendations being given to 7 police forces. In these cases the communications data
that was acquired was approved by a DP in all instances and the inspectors were satisfied that
the requests were necessary and proportionate. This part of the inspection process was not
introduced until 2010 and all of the police forces and LEAs will now have received an inspection
in this area and this should ensure improved compliance in future.
It is evident that police forces and LEAs are making good use of communications data as a
powerful investigative tool, primarily to prevent and detect crime and disorder. It is also apparent
that communications data plays a crucial role in the successful outcome of prosecutions and
often it is the primary reason why offenders plead guilty. SPoCs throughout the UK continue
to provide a valuable service to the investigation teams and often they make a significant
contribution to the successful outcome of operations. I would like to highlight a few examples
of how communications data is used by police forces and LEAs to investigate criminal offences
as they may provide a better understanding of its importance to criminal investigations. The
following two examples are based on extracts from the inspector’s reports.
Case Study 4 – Leicestershire Police – Operation Kanzu
This investigation into the attempted robbery of a Post Office effectively used
communications data to link the offender to the crime.The Postmaster had been followed
from the Post Office to a location near to his home in Nottingham. Having stopped to
make a call on his mobile phone, he was dragged out of his car at gunpoint by two men
who threatened to kill his wife and family if he didn’t assist them to gain entry into the
Post Office. The recipient of the phone call made by the Postmaster heard the scuffle and
alerted the police. Uniformed officers were sent to the Post Office and found the distressed
Postmaster in the rear of a stolen car. Two men fled from the scene but evaded capture.
Forensic examination of the stolen car revealed a possible suspect. A communications data
37