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 Parliament6 and
another person on constituency business may be involved or
communications between a Member of Parliament and a whistleblower. 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
6 References to a Member of Parliament include references to a member of the House of Commons, the
House of Lords, a UK member of the European Parliament, and members of the Scottish Parliament,
the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
15