BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
143
application for renewal of a warrant would have to show that interception of
those links continued to be of value, and continued to be necessary and
proportionate (in the Convention sense).
359. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must cancel a warrant if
satisfied that it is no longer necessary on section 5(3) grounds (see section 9
of RIPA at paragraph 62 above).
360. In Kennedy (cited above, § 161) the Court considered the same
provisions on the duration and renewal of interception warrants (in that
case, in the context of the section 8(1) regime) and found that the rules were
sufficiently clear as to provide adequate safeguards against abuse. In
particular, it noted that the duty on the Secretary of State to cancel warrants
which were no longer necessary meant, in practice, that the intelligence
services had to keep their warrants under continuous review. In light of the
foregoing considerations, the Court sees no grounds upon which to reach a
different conclusion in the present case. In particular, it sees no evidence to
substantiate the applicants’ claim that once issued, section 8(4) warrants
could continue indefinitely regardless of whether they continued to be
necessary and proportionate.
- Procedure to be followed for storing, accessing, examining and using the
intercepted data
361. As already noted, analysts may only examine material which
appears on the automatically generated index. Prior to analysts being able to
read, look at or listen to material on the index, they must make a record of
why access to the material is necessary for one of the statutory purposes set
out in section 5(3) of RIPA, and proportionate, having regard to whether the
information could reasonably be obtained by less intrusive means (see
sections 16(1) and (2) of RIPA, at paragraphs 78-79 above, and paragraphs
7.15 and 7.16 of the IC Code, at paragraph 90 above). Pursuant to section
16(2), they cannot select material for examination using criteria that refer to
the communications of individuals known currently to be in the British
Islands (see paragraph 79 above). Paragraph 7.16 of the IC Code also
requires the analyst to indicate any circumstances likely to give rise to a
degree of collateral infringement of privacy, together with the measures
taken to reduce the extent of that intrusion (see paragraph 90 above).
Subsequent access by the analyst is limited to a defined period of time;
although that period of time may be renewed, the record must be updated
giving reasons for renewal (see paragraph 7.17 of the IC Code, at paragraph
90 above).
362. Paragraph 7.15 of the IC Code further requires that analysts
examining intercepted material must be specially authorised to do so; must
receive regular mandatory training regarding on the provisions of RIPA and
specifically the operation of section 16 and the requirements of necessity
and proportionality; and must be vetted (see paragraph 90 above).