One of a series of posts on the forthcoming Investigatory
Powers Bill
Previous: Bulk Interception, Part 3
RIPA Section 8(1) governs the ordinary targeted interception
warrants issued by the Secretary of State, naming one person or a set of premises
as the interception subject. They have been relatively uncontroversial, apart
from the perennial disagreement over whether warrants should be judicially
authorised. Nevertheless targeted warrants give rise to some issues.
Reasonable suspicion. Although it is often imagined that a section 8(1) warrant
requires reasonable suspicion, that is not made explicit in RIPA.
Thematic warrants.
It emerged in the ISC Report (paras 42 to 45) that Section 8(1) has been used
for the issue of so-called thematic warrants. These are warrants for which the
named subject is a group or network of persons rather than an individual. Such warrants are possible because RIPA
defines a ‘person’ as “any organisation or any association or combination of
persons”. The ISC expressed concern as
to the extent that thematic warrants are used and around associated safeguards.
Recommendations of the three Reviews on thematic warrants:
ISC
|
Thematic warrants must be used
sparingly and should be authorised for a shorter timescale than a standard
8(1) warrant. (Recommendation D)
|
Anderson
|
My intention has been to encourage
the use of thematic warrants (Recommendation 27), but within strict limits.
The key issue here is the power of modification.
It should normally be for a Judicial
Commissioner to make major modifications to a specific interception warrant,
e.g. the addition of a new person or premises to the schedule.
(Recommendation 34)
|
RUSI
|
No
recommendation
|
Ban on disclosure.
Currently there is a blanket prohibition on disclosing the existence of both
targeted and bulk interception warrants.
Recommendations of the three Reviews on disclosure:
ISC
|
Disclosure should be permissible
where the Secretary of State considers that this could be done without damage
to national security. (Recommendation C)
|
Anderson
|
Within the constraints imposed by
national security, the current restrictions and prohibitions relating to the
disclosure of warrants and intercepted material (RIPA ss15 and 19, Official
Secrets Act 1989 s4) should be clarified and reviewed
in order to ensure, in particular, that:
(a) there is
no legal obstacle to explaining the uses (and utility) of warrants to
Parliament, courts and public, and
that
(b) as recommended by the Police
Ombudsman for Northern Ireland in his report of 30 October 2014 on the Omagh
bombing, there is “absolute clarity as to how specific
aspects of intelligence can be shared in order to assist in the investigation
of crime”. (Recommendation 10)
|
RUSI
|
No
recommendation
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.