Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - July 2016
7.35 The main reason for DPs returning or rejecting applications (Figure 14) was that
the DPs were not satisfied with the necessity and / or proportionality justifications. Some
8% were rejected because the DP had been notified that the data was no longer required,
for example, the investigation had progressed in a manner which negated the original
reason for acquiring the data, such as a wanted person being located by other means. In
3% of cases the DPs had self-declared that they were not independent of the investigation
and asked for the application to be forwarded to another DP to consider who was. Again
a significant proportion of the reasons were unclear (e.g. quality or clarity), no reason was
given by the DP, or the workflow system was unable to provide a breakdown.
Figure 14 Applications returned for further development or declined by a DP (by reason)
presentation of
application 12%
application no longer
required / SPoC
requested return 8%
DP not independent 3%
error identified 1%
other (inc. urgency not met) 3%
necessity &
proportionality
(inc. collateral
intrusion)
justification
no reason given /
system unable
to provide
breakdown 26%
45%
‘quality’ or ‘clarity’ 2%
7.36 It is important for SPoCs and DPs to record sufficiently the reasons for returning
applications for further development or declining applications.
7.37 Sensitive professions. The Code of Practice (Paragraphs 3.72 to 3.77) requires
applicants and DPs to give special consideration to and take particular care when
considering applications for communications data which relate to persons who are
members of professions which handle privileged or otherwise confidential information
(for example, medical doctors, lawyers etc). In addition public authorities must record
the number of such applications and report to the Commissioner annually. Although
public authorities have reported their annual figures to us, our examination of those
applications highlighted as being related to such professions at the time we inspected
some of the public authorities indicates that a large number (potentially as many as 80%)
had been miscategorised as relating to a sensitive profession when they did not. Usually
this was because the applicant had erroneously stated that the application related to a
member of a sensitive profession, rather than there being any ambiguity as to whether
the person to which the application related did in fact handle privileged or otherwise
54
@iocco_oversight