Agenda item

Report of the Executive Director of Place

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director of Place, which reported on the Council’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).

The Committee noted that Part 1 of RIPA covered the acquisition and interception of communications data and Part 2 covered covert surveillance and property interference.

The Council’s use of RIPA was to support its core functions for the purpose of prevention and detection of crime where an offence may be punishable by a custodial sentence of 6 months or more, or are related to the underage sale of alcohol and tobacco.  This was determined by reference to the legislation covering the surveillance, for example the Trade Marks Act relates to counterfeit goods and has a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.  The three types of technique available to local authorities are: the acquisition and disclosure of communications data (such as telephone billing information or subscriber details); directed surveillance (covert surveillance of individuals in public places); and covert human intelligence sources (“CHIS”) (such as the deployment of undercover officers).

The Committee noted that the Act sets out a compliance structure within which Coventry City Council could request judicial approval to use directed surveillance techniques or acquire communications data in order to support core function activities (e.g. typically those undertaken by Trading Standards, Environment Health and Benefits). The information obtained as a result of such operations could later be relied upon in court proceedings providing RIPA was complied with.

The Home Office Code for Covert Surveillance Property Interference recommended that elected members, whilst not involved in making decisions or specific authorisations for the local authority to use its powers under Part II of the Act, should review the Council’s use of the legislation and provide approval to its policies.  The Council adopted this approach for oversight of the authority’s use of Part I of the Act.

The report indicated that for the Period 1 April 2014 – 31 March 2015, as reported to the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) in April 2015, six applications had been presented to Magistrates and all had been granted.  All of the requests covered core functions permitted by the Act and were for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime.  There were no reported instances of the Council having misused its powers under the Act.

In relation to the use of Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data, for the period 1 January 2014 – 31 December 2014, there were seven applications for authorisation to acquire communications data.  These were reported to the Interception and Communications Commissioners Office (IOCCO) in January 2015.  All of the requests covered core functions permitted by the Act and were for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime.  There were no reported instances of the Council having misused its powers under the Act.

Having considered the report submitted, the Committee were of the view that there were no specific comments or recommendations to forward to the Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure, Sports and Parks.

RESOLVED that the Audit and Procurement Committee note the Council’s use and compliance with the Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).