24
BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
Duration of interception warrants
3.18. Interception warrants issued on serious crime grounds are valid for an initial
period of three months. Interception warrants issued on national security/economic
well-being of the UK grounds are valid for an initial period of six months. A warrant
issued under the urgency procedure (on any grounds) is valid for five working days
following the date of issue unless renewed by the Secretary of State.
3.19. Upon renewal, warrants issued on serious crime grounds are valid for a
further period of three months. Warrants renewed on national security/economic wellbeing of the UK grounds are valid for a further period of six months. These dates run
from the date on the renewal instrument.
3.20. Where modifications to an interception warrant are made, the warrant expiry
date remains unchanged. However, where the modification takes place under the
urgency provisions, the modification instrument expires after five working days
following the date of issue, unless it is renewed in line with the routine procedure.
3.21. Where a change in circumstance leads the intercepting agency to consider it
no longer necessary, proportionate or practicable for a warrant to be in force, the
agency must make a recommendation to the Secretary of State that it should be
cancelled with immediate effect.
...
4. SPECIAL RULES ON INTERCEPTION WITH A WARRANT
Collateral intrusion
4.1. Consideration should be given to any interference with the privacy of
individuals who are not the subject of the intended interception, especially where
communications relating to religious, medical, journalistic or legally privileged
material may be involved, or where communications between a Member of Parliament
and another person on constituency business may be involved or communications
between a Member of Parliament and a whistle-blower. An application for an
interception warrant should state whether the interception is likely to give rise to a
degree of collateral infringement of privacy. A person applying for an interception
warrant must also consider measures, including the use of automated systems, to
reduce the extent of collateral intrusion. Where it is possible to do so, the application
should specify those measures. These circumstances and measures will be taken into
account by the Secretary of State when considering a warrant application made under
section 8(1) of RIPA. Should an interception operation reach the point where
individuals other than the subject of the authorisation are identified as investigative
targets in their own right, consideration should be given to applying for separate
warrants covering those individuals.
Confidential information
4.2. Particular consideration should also be given in cases where the subject of the
interception might reasonably assume a high degree of privacy, or where confidential
information is involved. This includes where the communications relate to legally
privileged material; where confidential journalistic material may be involved; where
interception might involve communications between a medical professional or
Minister of Religion and an individual relating to the latter’s health or spiritual
welfare; or where communications between a Member of Parliament and another
person on constituency business may be involved.