BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
69
decision that can only be taken by the public authority holding the data on a case by
case basis.
8 OVERSIGHT
8.1. RIPA provides for an Interception of Communications Commissioner (‘the
Commissioner’) whose remit is to provide independent oversight of the exercise and
performance of the powers and duties contained under Chapter II of Part I of RIPA.
The Commissioner is supported by his inspectors who work from the Interception of
Communications Commissioner’s Office (IOCCO).
8.2. This code does not cover the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. It is the
duty of any person who uses the powers conferred by Chapter II, or on whom duties
are conferred, to comply with any request made by the Commissioner to provide any
information he requires for the purposes of enabling him to discharge his functions.
8.3. Should the Commissioner establish that an individual has been adversely
affected by any wilful or reckless failure by any person within a relevant public
authority exercising or complying with the powers and duties under RIPA in relation
to the acquisition or disclosure of communications data, he shall, subject to
safeguarding national security, inform the affected individual of the existence of the
Tribunal and its role. The Commissioner should disclose sufficient information to the
affected individual to enable them to engage the Tribunal effectively.
8.4. Reports made by the Commissioner concerning the inspection of public
authorities and their exercise and performance of powers under Chapter II may be
made available by the Commissioner to the Home Office to promulgate good practice
and help identify training requirements within public authorities and CSPs.
8.5. Subject to the approval of the Commissioner, public authorities may publish
their inspection reports, in full or in summary, to demonstrate both the oversight to
which they are subject and their compliance with Chapter II of RIPA and this code.
Approval should be sought on a case by case basis at least ten working days prior to
intended publication, stating whether the report is to be published in full, and, if not,
stating which parts are to be published or how it is to be summarised.”
3. News Group and Others v. The Commissioner of Police of the
Metropolis IPT/14/176/H, 17 December 2015
118. These proceedings were brought before the IPT by three journalists
and their employer. They challenged four authorisations issued under
section 22 of RIPA with the purpose of enabling police to obtain
communications data which might reveal sources of information obtained
by the journalists. They argued, inter alia, that the section 22 regime (at the
time supplemented by the 2007 Code of Practice) breached their rights
under Article 10 of the Convention as it did not adequately safeguard the
confidentiality of journalists’ sources. The IPT agreed that the regime in
place at the time did not contain effective safeguards to protect Article 10
rights in a case in which the authorisation had the purpose of obtaining
disclosure of the identity of a journalist’s source. It held:
“107. In the absence of a requirement for prior scrutiny by a court, particular regard
must be paid to the adequacy of the other safeguards prescribed by the law. The
designated person is not independent of the police force, although in practice, properly