BIG BROTHER WATCH AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT
59
an immediate threat of loss of human life, or for the protection of human
life, such that a person’s life might be endangered if the application
procedure were undertaken in writing from the outset;
an exceptionally urgent operational requirement where, within no more
than 48 hours of the notice being given or the authorisation being granted
orally, the acquisition of communications data will directly assist the
prevention or detection of the commission of a serious crime and the
making of arrests or the seizure of illicit material, and where that
operational opportunity will be lost if the application procedure is
undertaken in writing from the outset; or
a credible and immediate threat to national security or a time‑critical and
unique opportunity to secure, or prevent the loss of, information of vital
importance to national security where that threat might be realised, or that
opportunity lost, if the application procedure were undertaken in writing
from the outset.
3.66. The use of urgent oral process must be justified for each application within an
investigation or operation. The fact that any part of an investigation or operation is
undertaken urgently must not be taken to mean that all requirements to obtain
communications data in connection with that investigation or operation be undertaken
using the urgent oral process. It must be clear in each case why it was not possible, in
the circumstances, to use the standard, written process.
...
3.69. Written notice must be given to the CSP retrospectively within one working
day of the oral notice being given. Failure to do so will constitute an error which may
be reported to the Commissioner by the CSP and must be recorded by the public
authority (see the section on errors in Chapter 6, Keeping of Records, for more
details).
3.70. After the period of urgency, a separate written process must be completed
demonstrating the consideration given to the circumstances and the decisions taken.
The applicant or the SPoC shall collate details or copies of control room or other
operational logs which provide contemporaneous records of the consideration given to
the acquisition of data, decision(s) made by the designated person and the actions
taken in respect of the decision(s).
3.71. In all cases where urgent oral notice is given or authorisation granted, an
explanation of why the urgent process was undertaken must be recorded.
Communications data involving certain professions
3.72. Communications data is not subject to any form of professional privilege – the
fact a communication took place does not disclose what was discussed, considered or
advised.
3.73. However the degree of interference with an individual’s rights and freedoms
may be higher where the communications data being sought relates to a person who is
a member of a profession that handles privileged or otherwise confidential
information (including medical doctors, lawyers, journalists, Members of Parliament,
or ministers of religion). It may also be possible to infer an issue of sensitivity from
the fact someone has regular contact with, for example, a lawyer or journalist.
3.74. Such situations do not preclude an application being made. However
applicants, giving special consideration to necessity and proportionality, must draw