Agenda item

Surveillance, Covert Activities and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)

The Committee will receive the Surveillance, Covert Cctivities and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) report.

Minutes:

John Finch (Information Governance Manager) presented the surveillance, covert activities and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).  The report highlighted the following key areas -

 

(a)

surveillance was a tool that may be required for the Council to fulfil its obligations to investigate crime, prevent disorder, recover debt, protect the public and establish the facts about situations for which it had responsibility;

 

 

(b)

in certain situations, it may be appropriate to undertake covert activities which resulted in individuals being monitored without their knowledge; (the use of covert activities compromised an individual’s ‘right to privacy’, so the use of covert activity must be lawful, necessary and proportionate), in order to comply with the Human Rights Act.

 

The main areas of questioning from Members related to the –

 

(c)

retention period for records;

 

 

(d)

reasons behind the low level of  judicial applications that had been made during 2014/15 (two in total).

 

John Finch (Information Governance Manager) undertook to –

 

(e)

ascertain the retention period for the records;

 

 

(f)

seek clarification to the low level of judicial applications relating to Trading Standards.

 

The committee –

 

(1)

acknowledged that covert activities could be a necessary and proportionate response for achieving the Council’s objectives through approval for the Surveillance and Covert Activities Policy; which allowed covert activities to be deployed where necessary and proportionate, under the control of a good practice process based on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act requirements;

 

 

(2)

noted that the recent inspection by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners concerning use of Covert Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) demonstrated that staff had appropriately implemented those powers available under RIPA; the 2013 report by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners demonstrated that staff had appropriately implemented those powers available under RIPA to obtain Communications Data;

 

the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 created a judicial approval process for all Local Authority RIPA applications; following internal authorisation the local authority would seek judicial approval for their RIPA authorisation; the authorisation would not come into effect unless or until it was approved by a JP;

 

further changes had been implemented by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence Sources) (Amendment) Order 2012; local authorities would only authorise directed surveillance or CHIS under RIPA to prevent or detect criminal offences that were punishable, by a maximum term of at least six months imprisonment or are related to the underage sale of alcohol and tobacco;

 

the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 received Royal Assent on 17 July 2015; the Act ensured that critical capabilities to fight crime and protect the public were maintained and clarified the existing law without extending current powers;

 

the Act introduces additional safeguards for the use of Investigatory Powers to respond to criticisms raised by the European Court of Justice; under the new measures certain public bodies lost the right to acquire communications data under RIPA; local authorities including Plymouth City Council had retained their powers but were required to use the National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN) to assess communication data applications;

 

 

(3)

would ensure that the recommendations in the report were fully implemented.

 

Supporting documents: