Agenda Item No_______12_____
REVIEW OF SURVEILLANCE POLICIES AND AUTHORISATIONS
Summary:
The report provides an update for members on the two
Policies required by the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the actual use of these
policies by Council services.
Conclusions:
There are no changes required by legislation and
statutory guidance to either Policy.
The Policies are in need of update to reflect changes in
posts and responsibilities following the management
restructuring.
In the past 12 months, any Authorisations have been
lawfully undertaken.
Recommendations:
Members are asked to note the report of authorisations
made in the past year and note and accept the delay to
changes made to the policy in light of the on-going
management restructuring.
Cabinet Member(s)
Ward(s) affected
Cllr John Lee, Cllr Trevor
All
Ivory
Contact Officer, telephone number and email:
Nick Baker, ext 6221, nick.baker@north-norfolk.gov.uk
1.
Introduction
Members may be aware that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
(RIPA) (“the Act”) provides a structure under which certain methods of
surveillance are controlled.
Some of these methods are used by local authorities and indeed this Council,
for a range of activities, particularly as a part of regulatory and enforcement
activity and for the purposes of preventing crime and disorder.
Clearly, there will always be concern about intrusion into people’s privacy
where any surveillance is undertaken and indeed, the Human Rights Act 1998
enshrines this issue in legislation. The Policies under consideration here seek
to ensure that where surveillance activity is necessary, privacy is protected
wherever possible.
The Act requires that the Council publishes two Policies for its activities in this
area which lay out a framework for authorising certain methods of
surveillance which may be necessary during activity undertaken by the
Council. The Council is required to keep the Policies under review on an
annual basis and it is the anniversary of the last report to this committee on
these policies.
The policies also require that the uses of authorisations under RIPA are
reported to this committee on an annual basis. This report provides details of
the authorisations made since June 2011.
2.
Authorisations over the past year
2.1
Worksheet 110007712-2
The application was made in respect of the use of covert motion operated
CCTV cameras installed in a property subjected to anti-social behaviour by
local youths. This was a jointly run operation as part of the OPT (Operational
Partnership Team).
Operation
Applicant
WK/110007712-2
Mark Whitmore
Authorising
Officer
Stephen Hems
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
20.07.11
14.10.11
The surveillance met its objectives in that it enabled the identification of
offenders and allowed further interventions to take place, leading to a
significant decrease in problems encountered by the victims.
2.2
Worksheet 110025071-1
The application was made following significant and repeated fly tipping of
clothing and plastic bags on a sugar beet pad. There was some pattern with
regard to the days of the week when the fly tipping took place but no
indication regarding time of night.
The authorisation was for the installation of covert motion triggered CCTV
cameras on the affected land with the objective of identifying any individuals
responsible and vehicle details used in the commissioning of the offence.
Operation
WK/110025071-1
2.3
Applicant
Rachel Smith
Authorising
Officer
Stephen Hems
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
25.10.11
04.11.11
Worksheet 110025071-2
This application related to a second piece of land which had also been
subject to fly tipping of the same type of material, close to the original site. It
was considered appropriate to make a second application in relation to the
site to ensure that the Council could demonstrate compliance with the
legislation. The authorisation was for the same surveillance as the other site.
Operation
Applicant
Authorising
Officer
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
WK/110025071-2
Rachel Smith
Stephen Hems
27.10.11
04.11.11
The surveillance operation met its objectives as on the first night of being in
place led to the arrest of three individuals for the fly tipping of clothes waste
on one of the sites. On the basis that the objective had been met and the
likelihood of further fly tipping was very low, the authorisation was cancelled
for both sites.
2.4
VHT/AB/01
The application was for directed surveillance to corroborate reports of antisocial behaviour and witness intimidation by Victory Housing Trust tenants
against residents of sheltered housing. The objective was to determine the
extent and seriousness of any anti-social behaviour to enable the most
appropriate course of action to prevent further occurrences.
The authorisation was for the installation of 4 CCTV covert motion operated
cameras.
Operation
Applicant
Authorising
Officer
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
VHT/AB/01
Mark Whitmore
Nick Baker
18.11.11
13.02.12
Following installation of the cameras, only one incident of anti-social
behaviour took place and so continuation of the surveillance was not deemed
necessary or proportionate.
2.5
HBC/001
The application for directed surveillance was made by the Operational
Partnership Team in order to corroborate reports of anti-social behaviour and
criminal damage associated with youths gathering on a play area adjacent to
sheltered housing. Other interventions had not led to any reduction in antisocial behaviour.
The authorisation was for the installation of two covert CCTV motion operated
cameras, sited to view the front and rear of the victim’s property.
Operation
HBC/001
Applicant
PCSO
Robotham
Authorising
Officer
Stephen Hems
Authorisation
Date
Cancellation
Date
08.03.12
07.06.12
The authorisation reached its maximum duration on the 7th May 2012. As this
was the first application made by an officer outside of the Local Authority, in
this case a member of the Operational Partnership Team, the normal internal
monitoring arrangement for review and cancellation were not used. Although
there have been no infringements of the Human Rights Act, as none of the
data recorded since the authorisation lapsed has been viewed, this is a
breach of the RIPA legislation by the Council. A review of the management of
the authorisations is being progressed with other members of the Operational
Partnership Team.
3.
General
There are no RIPA authorisations currently in force.
There have been no applications for the use of covert human intelligence
sources (CHIS).
There have been two instances of surveillance authorised which did not fall
under the requirements of RIPA. In both these cases appropriate signage
was erected to advise individuals that cameras were in use in the area.
There has been one breach of procedures in relation to directed surveillance
detailed under 2.5 above.
The Senior Responsible Officer has provided the Office of Surveillance
Commissions with statistical data in relation to the use of directed surveillance
and covert human intelligence sources for inclusion in the annual report to the
Prime Minister.
4.
Review of Policies
Members have previously agreed two policy documents –
•
•
Policy for Directed Surveillance and Use of Covert Human Intelligence
Sources (CHIS)
Policy on the Use of Covert Surveillance and Access to
Communications Data
Both these policies are subject to annual review by the Overview and Scrutiny
Committee, the last review by this committee having been June 2011.
There have been no updates to the codes of practice covering RIPA since the
last report. On this basis the contents of both policies remain fit for purpose in
relation to compliance with legislation and good practice. Within the
documents reference is made to a number of posts which, following the
management restructure, no longer exist. As the management restructure is
not yet complete it would make sense to await the outcome, including the
potential reallocation of responsibilities, of the restructure to ensure the policy
adequately and accurately reflects posts and responsibilities under RIPA.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 received Royal Assent on 1st May
2012. Part 2 of the Act covers regulation of surveillance, including
safeguards for certain surveillance under RIPA. The main effect is that any
authorisation for directed surveillance will need judicial approval before taking
effect. This means that once an Authorising Officer is satisfied that the
directed surveillance can be authorised it will need to be taken for agreement
by a Magistrates Court. Full guidance on the process and procedures for this
change has yet to be provided. The legislation is being introduced
incrementally and, as yet, there is no date set for implementation of the above
provision. Both policies will require further review once the provisions come
into force and this will be subject to a future report to this Committee and
subsequently through to Full Council.
5.
Conclusion
There are no changes required by legislation and statutory guidance to either
Policy.
The Policies are in need of update to reflect changes in posts and
responsibilities following the management restructuring.
In the past 12 months, any Authorisations have been lawfully undertaken.
6.
Implications and Risks
If Directed Surveillance is undertaken by the Council or its Officers which is
not in accordance with the requirements of the RIPA, proceedings or
compensation are possible under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Unauthorised Directed Surveillance may also jeopardise any prosecutions
that the Council may bring against offenders. Properly authorised activity will
protect the Council from such challenges and risks.
7.
Financial Implications and Risks
If Directed Surveillance is undertaken by the Council or its Officers which is
not in accordance with the requirements of the RIPA, proceedings or
compensation are possible under Section 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Unsuccessful court action may result in costs being awarded against the
Council. Properly authorised activity will protect the Council from such
challenges and risks.
8.
Sustainability
There are not considered to be any Sustainability issues as these would be a
required consideration when authorising the use of RIPA Powers.
9.
Equality and Diversity
There are not considered to be any Equality and Diversity issues as these
would be a required consideration when authorising the use of RIPA Powers.
10.
Section 17 Crime and Disorder considerations
By the very nature of RIPA activity, the prevention of crime and disorder
would go to the heart of any authorisation. In addition, there is a need for
RIPA to be considered in some circumstances during the use of CCTV
operations by the Council.