2012 Annual Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner
This year 6% of the recommendations represented serious non-compliance with the Act and
Code of Practice. Figure 18 shows that regrettably one public authority emerged poorly from
their inspection and I can report that this was a Fire and Rescue Authority. 4 of the 5 red
recommendations actually related to this one public authority. It was the first inspection of the
authority as although they reported using their powers infrequently in 2006 and 2007, no data
had been acquired between 2008 and 2010. The 2012 inspection was planned in response to
statistics provided at the end of 2011 which indicated some further usage. My inspector identified
serious non-compliance with the Act and CoP during this inspection which stemmed from the
fact that the record keeping requirements outlined in Paragraph 6.1 of the Code of Practice had
not been complied with (copies of applications and DPs approvals not retained). Due to the lack
of documentation and records, it was not possible for my inspector to be satisfied firstly that
the acquisition of communications data satisfied the principles of necessity and proportionality
or secondly that the communications data had been acquired lawfully. It was not even clear if any
data had been acquired by the public authority as there were no records in relation to any CSP
disclosures. I concluded that although the public authority’s conduct bordered on reckless, they
had not wilfully breached the legislation. Furthermore the public authority assured me of their
desire to achieve compliance with their obligations under Part I Chapter 2 of RIPA in future. The
inspection report was hard hitting and was difficult for the public authority to accept, however
I understand the recommendations from the inspection have now been addressed. I assured
the public authority that my office would continue to work positively with them to ensure
compliance.
“A number of these public authorities have other functions or civil
enforcement work which does not concern the investigation of criminal
offences, and it was good to see that they were ensuring that their powers
under Part I Chapter 2 of RIPA were not used for those purposes.”
This year more than half of the recommendations were amber. These recommendations fell into
4 key areas; Applicant, SPoC, DPs and Notices. Amber recommendations were made to assist the
public authorities to tighten their procedures in these areas and / or to improve administrative
compliance issues. These recommendations will be covered later in this section of the report.
90% of the public authorities that were inspected during the reporting year were completing
their applications to a good or satisfactory standard. In a minority of cases the inspectors had
to discuss the justifications further with applicants or DPs or examine supplementary evidence
in order to be satisfied that the requests were necessary and proportionate. In these cases they
concluded that there was still room for applicants to improve on the quality of their applications
to ensure they can stand alone. The inspections confirmed that the public authorities inspected
restricted the use of their powers to acquire communications data to investigations where they
have a clear statutory duty and responsibility to conduct a criminal investigation. A number of
these public authorities have other functions or civil enforcement work which does not concern
the investigation of criminal offences, and it was good to see that they were ensuring that their
powers under Part I Chapter 2 of RIPA were not used for those purposes.
Overall my inspectors were satisfied that the SPoCs were ensuring that their public authorities
acted in an informed and lawful manner when acquiring communications data. Amber
49