BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
23
A person who, for the purposes of any international mutual assistance
agreement, is the competent authority of a country or territory outside the
UK.
3.3. Any application made on behalf of one of the above must be made by a person
holding office under the Crown.
3.4. All interception warrants are issued by the Secretary of State. Even where the
urgency procedure is followed, the Secretary of State personally authorises the
warrant, although it is signed by a senior official.
Necessity and proportionality
3.5. Obtaining a warrant under RIPA will only ensure that the interception
authorised is a justifiable interference with an individual’s rights under Article 8 (right
to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) if it is necessary and proportionate for the interception to take place. RIPA
recognises this by first requiring that the Secretary of State believes that the
authorisation is necessary for one or more of the following statutory grounds:
In the interests of national security;
To prevent or detect serious crime;
To safeguard the economic well-being of the UK so far as those interests
are also relevant to the interests of national security.
3.6. These purposes are set out in section 5(3) of RIPA. The Secretary of State must
also believe that the interception is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by
that conduct. Any assessment of proportionality involves balancing the seriousness of
the intrusion into the privacy or property of the subject of the operation (or any other
person who may be affected) against the need for the activity in investigative,
operational or capability terms. The warrant will not be proportionate if it is excessive
in the overall circumstances of the case. Each action authorised should bring an
expected benefit to the investigation or operation and should not be disproportionate
or arbitrary. The fact that there is a potential threat to national security (for example)
may not alone render the most intrusive actions proportionate. No interference should
be considered proportionate if the information which is sought could reasonably be
obtained by other less intrusive means.
3.7. The following elements of proportionality should therefore be considered:
...
Balancing the size and scope of the proposed interference against what is
sought to be achieved;
Explaining how and why the methods to be adopted will cause the least
possible intrusion on the subject and others;
Considering whether the activity is an appropriate use of the legislation and
a reasonable way, having considered all reasonable alternatives, of
obtaining the necessary result;
Evidencing, as far as reasonably practicable, what other methods have been
considered and were either not implemented or have been employed but
which are assessed as insufficient to fulfil operational objectives without
the addition of the intercept material sought.