Interception
Use of interception
Interception is strictly regulated to ensure its use is proportionate to the activity it is deployed against and in circumstances when the required information cannot reasonably be obtained by other means.
Who can use interception?
With a few specific exceptions set out in RIPA - such as interception in penal establishments under Prison Rules or for business purposes under separate arrangements which provide for warning that interception may occur - intelligence services, the police and other law enforcement agencies such as HM Revenue & Customs can use interception only if they have a warrant signed by the Secretary of State.
All authorities that use interception must follow the statutory Interception of Communications Code of Practice.
The Interception of Communications Commissioner independently scrutinises and reports annually on all interception activity to ensure it is being pursued lawfully.
An annual report on the Commissioner's findings (new window) is published.
'Intelligence' not 'evidence'
Crucially, the law does not allow any information obtained through interception to be used as evidence with only a few exceptions. The exceptions include:
- offences relating to interception itself
- offences relating to the Official Secrets Act
- non-criminal proceedings such as Special Immigration Appeals Commission hearings.
Instead, authorities use intercepted information as 'intelligence' to help them disrupt and prevent serious criminal and terrorist acts. They also use interception to determine which investigation and surveillance techniques they should use to obtain evidence that they can use in court.
This policy is designed to protect the close and effective co-operation between law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
Using intercept evidence in court: a review
For the last 15 years there has been a debate about whether authorities could fight crime more effectively if the law was changed to allow the use of intercepted material as evidence in court.
A two-year review of the use of intercept as evidence ordered by the Prime Minister and completed in 2005 concluded that:
-
The risks of using intercept evidentially outweighed the benefits of doing so
-
The impact of new technology needed to be properly considered and factored into the decision-making process.
Post 2005 - the Chilcot Review
Since then, a cross-party review chaired by Sir John Chilcot (the Chilcot Review (new window)) has reviewed the subject again on a Privy Council basis. Its report was published in February 2008.
The government has fully endorsed the findings of the Chilcot Review that it should be possible to devise a means of proving intercept as evidence in criminal trials in England and Wales - but only providing certain key conditions the report identified can be met and that this would be consistent with the overriding need to protect national security.
It is publicly committed to taking forward the extensive work identified by the Chilcot Review and has set up all the processes and programmes needed to do that. This includes participation by a cross-Party Advisory Group of Privy Counsellors representing the original Chilcot Team.
