20. Both in the run up to, and following the Order coming into force I had
numerous meetings with officials at the Home Office on establishing the
appropriate oversight regime for the provisions of the Order. I am pleased to
say that, following discussions with the Home Office, and in accordance with
section 57(7) of RIPA, arrangements are now being put in hand to recruit
additional staff to help me in my oversight of RIPA Part I Chapter II as well as
my non-statutory role of overseeing interception in prisons (see paragraphs
21 – 25 below).
Prisons
21. In my earlier Annual reports, I highlighted the fact that I had been asked
by the Home Secretary to oversee the interception of communications in
prisons for police and security purposes. Although this function does not fall
within my statutory jurisdiction under RIPA, I agreed, in principle, to
undertake this role given my experience of, and responsibility for, the
interception of communications under that legislation. In paragraph 26 of my
2002 report I detailed the first five establishments that I had visited. Since then
I have re-visited HM Prison Belmarsh and made first time visits to HM Prison
Wormwood Scrubs, HM Prison Lincoln, HM Prison Woodhill and HM Prison
Nottingham.
22. My purpose in re-visiting HM Prison Belmarsh was to establish whether
the deficiencies highlighted in my first visit had been addressed. Not all these
had been and a report will be sent to the Governor concerning these.
23. At the other four establishments there were three primary areas of
inspection:
•
The methods utilised in the establishments for the interception of
telephone communications and postal communications.
•
A physical inspection of the interception of telephone communications
and the equipment utilised.
•
A physical inspection of the arrangements for the interception of postal
communications.
24. I was particularly concerned to ensure that all interception was carried
out lawfully and in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998, the
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, and the Prison Rules made under
the Prison Act 1952. When interception in prisons is carried out on behalf of the
police in the course of an investigation, then the primary responsibility for
complying with the legislation lies with the police. When it is carried out on
behalf of the prison authorities under the Prison Act and the Rules made under
the Act, then the responsibility for compliance lies with the prison.
25. After each visit I produced a brief individual report for the prison Governor
and Prison Service Headquarters detailing my findings. I do not propose to go
into any detail about these visits, or my findings, in this Annual Report. However,
my overall conclusion following these visits is that the arrangements for
interception in the establishments inspected has highlighted a number of
inconsistencies in the approach to interception work in prisons, and that the
Prison Rules are not always strictly complied with. These are issues which are
being addressed by the Prison Service and must continue to be addressed.
5