Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner - July 2016
7.96 We note that the IP Bill (clause 207) has brought some further clarity to this area
by introducing a “significant prejudice or harm” threshold as well as a public interest test.
However in accordance with the above considerations, we have already set out in various
publications, including in Section 5 of this report, some of the practical difficulties that
the Investigatory Powers Commissioner may encounter when operating the powers as
currently drafted.
7.97 During 2015 we undertook 34 serious error investigations. We concluded that in
11 of the 34 cases the errors did not in the end meet our serious error criteria.
7.98 Of the remaining 23 cases, 14 of the serious errors were human errors and 9 were
system errors.
7.99
The impact or consequences of 14 human errors were as follows:
•
•
•
persons unconnected to an investigation were visited by police (5);
a delayed welfare check on a vulnerable person (6);
a search warrant was executed at an address of a person unconnected to the
investigation and / or persons unconnected to the investigation arrested (3).
7.100 Where a technical system error occurs it can have multiple consequences and
is likely to result in a large number of erroneous disclosures. The 9 technical system
errors resulted in 2036 erroneous disclosures. In the vast majority of these cases the
error was quickly identified and the erroneous data was destroyed without any action
being taken upon it. 2 of the 9 technical system errors led to 14 instances where search
warrants were executed at the addresses of persons unconnected to the investigation
and / or persons unconnected to the investigations were arrested, 1 instance where a
person unconnected to the investigation was visited by police, and 1 instance where the
erroneous data resulted in a delayed welfare check on a vulnerable person.
7.101 One of the 23 cases was discovered during an inspection of a police force. As a
result of a detailed investigation into the circumstances of this case the Commissioner
determined that two applications submitted in relation to that investigation were not
necessary or proportionate for the stated purpose (the prevention and detection of
crime). The Commissioner determined that the individual to whom the applications
related had been adversely affected because they were visited by police in connection
with that investigation. In accordance with Paragraph 6.22 of the Code of Practice the
Commissioner informed the individual of the error and provided sufficient information
for them to pursue a complaint with the IPT. The individual concerned has decided not to
pursue the matter further and to respect the privacy of that individual we do not intend
to provide any further information on the matter.
70
@iocco_oversight