HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

POLICY AND RESOURCES CABINET PANEL

WEDNESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 2011 AT 2.00PM

REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT (RIPA): QUARTERLY UPDATE COVERING THE PERIODJULY TO SEPTEMBER 2011

Report of the Chief Legal Officer

[Author: Guy Pratt, Assistant Director Community Protection Tel: 01992 507535]

Executive Members:David Lloyd (Resources and Economic Wellbeing)

Richard Thake (Environment & Community Safety)

1.Purpose of the report

1.1To inform Members of the implementation of RIPA by Hertfordshire County Council; to highlight any deviations from policy; and to provide details of any internal and external inspections and audits which have taken place.

2.Periodof the report

2.1This report covers the period July to September 2011. This is the 2nd quarter report to Members.

3Recommendations

3.1Members are asked to note the report. Any queries arising from its contents may be raised with Guy Pratt, Assistant Director Community Protection.

4Background

4.1The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (the Act) regulates covert investigations and the acquisition and disclosure of communications data from communication service providers by a number of bodies, including local authorities. It was introduced to ensure that individuals' rights are protected, while also ensuring that law enforcement and security agencies have the powers they need to do their job effectively.

4.2The only purpose for which we can access such data is for the purpose of preventingor detecting crime or of preventing disorder. The exception is the Fire and Rescue Service, which may also access such data in the interests of public safety.

4.3The County Council has separate policies on covert investigations and the acquisition and disclosure of communications data. These require Members to consider internal reports on the use of RIPA on at least a quarterly basis, to ensure that it is being used consistently with the Council's policy and that the policy remains fit for purpose.

5Use Of RIPA for covert investigations

5.1 In the 2ndquarter, July to September 2011, Hertfordshire County Council’s use of RIPA for surveillance purposes was as follows:

(a)Directed Surveillance

The number of directed surveillance authorisations granted during the period was 4. See table for breakdown. There were:

3 alcohol test purchasing exercises

1 tobacco test purchasing exercises

(b)Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS)

The number of CHIS recruited during the period was 0 (zero); the number who ceased to be used during the period was 0 (zero); and the number of active CHIS at the end of the period was 0 (zero).

(c)Breach in procedures

The number of breaches, particularly unauthorised surveillance activity, identified under each category of authorisation (Directed Surveillance and CHIS) was 0 (none).

5.2On 19 September 2011 there was an inspection by the Chief Surveillance Commissioner’s Office within the period – see section 8 below.

Ref. / Authorising officer / Crime / disorder
DS0176 / Community Protection Manager / Alcohol test purchasing for minors
DS0177 / Not Used / --
DS0178 / Community Protection Manager / Alcohol test purchasing for minors
DS0179 / Community Protection Manager / Tobacco test purchasing for minors
DS0180 / Community Protection Manager / Alcohol test purchasing for minors

6Use Of RIPA for the acquisition and disclosure of communications data

6.1In the quarter July to September 2011, Hertfordshire County Council’s use of RIPA for obtaining communications data was as follows:

(a)Applications for communications data:4.

There were requests for 9data items (e.g. separate telephone numbers, I.P. addresses).

(b)Applications rejected: 0

6.2There were no inspections by the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office within the period.

6.3Details of applications:

Ref. / Designated person / Crime / disorder / Status of data subject / Data requested / No of data items
10/11 / Community Protection Manager / To establish that a car trader who refused to be interviewed, is connected to the business that sold a misdescribed vehicle. / Trader / Subscriber details / 2
11/11 / Community Protection Manager / To identify a trader advertising and selling clocked cars on ebay. / Trader / Subscriber details / 4
12/11 / Community Protection Manager / To identify a cold calling trader who made misleading statements. / Trader / Subscriber details / 2
13/11 / Community Protection Manager / To prove that a trader was linked to a business that carried out work at a consumers home where CPR offences were committed. / Trader / Service use / 1

7.Financial Implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

  1. Office of Surveillance Commissioner’s Inspection Report

8.1On 19 September 2011, the management of covert activities by Hertfordshire County Councilunder RIPA was reviewed by HH Dr C Kolbert on behalf of the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC). His report is split into 2 parts – Hertfordshire County Council and Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue Service, with the OSC viewing the visit as two inspections. This is because they inspect both stand alone Fire & Rescue Services aswell as with local authority councils.

8.2The report(s) are for all extents and purpose the same, as Hertfordshire Fire & Rescue has not found the necessity to use RIPA for covert surveillance purposes.

8.3The report was a favourable one, and was sent by Sir Christopher Rose, The Chief Surveillance Commissioner with a covering letter thanking the County Council for the facilities afforded for the inspection, and furtherstating:

“I am pleased to see that, under the effective leadership of Guy Pratt, your council shows continuing professionalism in relation to its RIPA processes and everything seems to be in place to ensure effective use of directed surveillance when the need arises.”

8.4Dr Kolbert’s report, amongst other matters, makes reference to the previous inspection (by Neil Smart) which highlighted deficiencies in the (then) documentation of necessity, proportionality and sufficient detail as to what actions were being authorised andwhat authorisations notedrelated to mainly. The inspection found that these matters had been improved markedly by training since 2008 and by the adoption of the Home Office forms which expressly require Authorising Officers to set out the proposed operation in terms of the "5W's" (Who, What, Why, Where, When).

8.5The conclusions of the report are found in sections 14 and 15, and state:

“The will to professionalise RIPA processes within the Council, which was noted in paragraph 20 of Neil Smart's Report, has continued to manifest itself under the leadership of Guy Pratt who has done sterling work in his role as the officer with overall responsibility for RIPA operations. Everything now seems to be in place to ensure swift and efficient use of Directed Surveillance when required and only relatively minor matters need attention.”

“As before, Guy Pratt deserves thanks for organising and facilitating the Inspection, to which congratulations should be added for the work he has done to ensure improvement of processes in line with Neil Smart's recommendations.”

8.6The report contains a single recommendation under section 16, namely:

“Anew Guidance Document, already under consideration, should be produced as soon as possible so that officers have readily to hand a practical vade mecum giving guidance at a suitable level between the 'high level' Policy Document which is too general to be helpful to them, and the Home Office Codes of Practice which might be deemed unwieldy as a practitioner's handbook.”

This recommendation will be acted upon and the matter reported back to this Panel.

1