Covert Surveillance and Human Rights Act and RIPA

isstraining said:
Guys,

Don't forget this bit:

In the interests of national security

For the prevention and detection of crime or the prevention of disorder

In the interest of public safety

For the purpose of protecting public health

For the purpose of assessing or collecting an tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department

If it doesn't fall into any of these categories, RIPA is not required.

Peter
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post Peter, but is not how I read it (but happy to be proved where I am wrong).


1.1 Directed surveillance is defined in section 26(2) of the 2000 Act as surveillance which is covert, but not intrusive, and undertaken:

a) for the purposes of a specific investigation or specific operation;

b) in such a manner as is likely to result in the obtaining of private information about a person (whether or not one specifically identified for the purposes of the investigation or operation); and

c) otherwise than by way of an immediate response to events or circumstances the nature of which is such that it would not be reasonably practicable for an authorisation under Part II of the 2000 Act to be sought for the carrying out of the surveillance.

So the above is what is directed surveillance. Authorisation for such surveillance is only possible under the following circumstances:-

Authorisation Procedures

4.1 Under section 28(3) of the 2000 Act an authorisation for directed surveillance may be granted by an authorising officer where he believes that the authorisation is necessary in the circumstances of the particular case:

· in the interests of national security[1], [2];

· for the purpose of preventing and detecting[3] crime or of preventing disorder;

· in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK;

· in the interests of public safety;

· for the purpose of protecting public health[4];

· for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department; or

· for any other purpose prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State[5].

4.2 The authorising officer must also believe that the surveillance is proportionate to what it seeks to achieve.

So unless the directed surveillance is undertaken for one of the purposes listed above and is believed to be proportionate then authoristaion for directed surveillance cannot take place.

Someone please help!

Ilkie
 
Last edited:
Thats how I read it, authorisation is required, and to get it, it must fall under one of those categories.

For directed surveilance, if its not authorised, due to it falling into one of those categories, then it cant be done legally.

Authorities cant conduct surveillance without authorisation.

A insurance company cannot discharge its obligations to operate under the law, if it is operating for a council etc then RIPA has to be followed.
 
ilk or kensplace

So are you saying that a Police Force or Local Authority can't conduct surveillance on an employee on long term sickness? Or an insurance company, who insures either, can't conduct surveillance on someone who claims to have been injured?

Because if you are then I and many other on here must start looking for another job.

I can see the way you are reading the act and it can be confusing if read that way.

You ask for help. Give Paul Abbott (RIPA) a ring as he teaches RIPA.
 
romark said:
ilk or kensplace

So are you saying that a Police Force or Local Authority can't conduct surveillance on an employee on long term sickness? Or an insurance company, who insures either, can't conduct surveillance on someone who claims to have been injured?

Because if you are then I and many other on here must start looking for another job.

I can see the way you are reading the act and it can be confusing if read that way.

You ask for help. Give Paul Abbott (RIPA) a ring as he teaches RIPA.
Click to expand...

Sorry Mate,

The way I read it, and it seems that Ken agrees, is that sickness is not a valid reason for conducting surveillance on an individual if RIPA applies (ie the end client is a public authority as defined by the Act).

This is probably why RIPA authorisation has not been granted.

The problem that with most legislation passed these days, nothing is clear cut.

Under the Act if the end client is a public authority you cannot undertake surveillance, if it is not (say a private company) you can. Daft isn't it.

Local Authorities are notorious for ignoring legislation when it suits them (even if they understand it in the first place), especially when they can get someone else to carry the can.

The issue becomes your insurance cover, should (god forbid) something goes pear shaped and you get sued, will your insurance company cover your liability if you are acting outside the law?

Now I am not a legal expert, and would suggest that if this type of job comes along, take professional legal advice before you take it on.

Ilkie
 
You and Ken may agree but you are wrong. Sickness is a good reason for conducting surveillance and for this RIPA does not apply.

One last time I will say to you give (Paul Abbott) RIPA a call, unless he has given up the will to live reading this.

I not only work for insurance companies and local authorites but also Police HR on long term sickness and unless there is a crime involved you dont need RIPA.

From my experience local authorities have a good understanding of RIPA and do not abuse it as you suggest.
 
Following on from the discussion of using direct surveillance i have a case which i have had allot of mixed message from and wonderered red if the same principle's which has been mentioned in previous responses on here may apply.

I run a small brokering company which delves into the world of construction and development. I brokered a deal with a company which promised to pay me if i introduced them to build contracts.

Long story short i was given the run around by the employee and had to in the end secretly film one of our meetings in his office.

I have sound and visual content and now feel that it is time to use this in a court of law as they are stating that i am an opportunist trying to cash in on a 17.2 million pound building contract which i introduced them to. The employee has left the company so i and did not convey to them that my company was involved in the introduction.

Can i use this evidence in court?
 
Can I just throw my four penn'uth in?
As for covert recording/surveillance, if you call a bank for example and you hear the '...all calls will be recorded for training and quality' line. This makes you aware of the recording taking place.
If ,however ,you call a public body and record the conversation without their knowledge, the evidence is in inadmissible.
Surely this has implications for covert recording?
As mentioned, sickness is a case for surveillance? I would say you'd have to have a pretty watertight case to covertly film a member of the public. Or be wary of a counte claim that you were impinging on human right rules.
If sickness was 'ok' to film, everyone who took time off for any reason would fall under this umbrella. Also, if this was the case, employers would save more money iling everyone on a sickkie, and paying the assosiated cost to a PI to prove the guy was fit to work.

Fwog
 
romark said:
You and Ken may agree but you are wrong. Sickness is a good reason for conducting surveillance and for this RIPA does not apply.

One last time I will say to you give (Paul Abbott) RIPA a call, unless he has given up the will to live reading this.

I not only work for insurance companies and local authorites but also Police HR on long term sickness and unless there is a crime involved you dont need RIPA.

From my experience local authorities have a good understanding of RIPA and do not abuse it as you suggest.
Click to expand...

Just by chance on the BBC news website today:-

Les Lawrence, chairman of the LGA's safer communities board, said: "There have been concerns that some local councils have not used RIPA proportionately, and the LGA wrote to all authorities last year to argue that the use of surveillance to tackle dog fouling and littering - no matter how important these issues are to local residents - was not appropriate.
"All public authorities have a responsibility to use surveillance in a way that is acceptable to local residents and is consistent with the spirit of the legislation.

"Residents need to be able to scrutinise how their council is using surveillance. It is only by giving the elected representatives of local people more power that we will rebuild trust in the use of techniques that councils need to crack down on serious criminals."

He added: "The use of surveillance should be reserved for dealing with serious criminals like fly-tippers, benefit cheats, counterfeiters and loan sharks. Time and again, these are just the type of crimes that residents say they want to see tackled."

The LGA suggests co-opting members of the public on to a council scrutiny committee that will oversee the use of covert surveillance
It also suggests making a senior councillor responsible for authorising the use of RIPA, who can then be held to account.

Since 2003 councils have only been able to use undercover methods against those suspected of breaking criminal law.

Surveillance by local authorities is not allowed to be intrusive, such as bugging of phone lines or entering premises.

In England it is restricted to suspected breaches of criminal law and cannot be used to investigate suspected tax dodgers, for example, or on economic or public safety grounds.

Such exemptions do not apply in Scotland.

link [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8341197.stm"][URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8341197.stm[/URL][/URL]

also

link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7468430.stm

Ilkie
 
Last edited:
matadon16
You obviously need to speak to a lawer but if the evidence you have is very strong a judge may rule it admissable. The below link refers to an employment tribunal in 2006 but it may be relevent to you.

[url]http://www.thomasmore.co.uk/ImageLibrary/Inpractice_APorter.pdf[/URL]

fwog

This discussion is about RIPA which controls surveillance by Police and Local Authorities. Your points concern actions outside of this and are not therefore regulated unless you step outside certain other laws such as DPA and HRA.

Banks and others only have that pre recorded message as it tends to minimise abuse and also attempts to stop people telling miss truths.

If I call a public body or anyone else for that matter and record that conversation then that recording can be used as evidence but it will be up to a judge to decide on the day in court.

It is ok to film anyone whether for a sickness investigation or otherwise as long as you don't breach their Human Rights such as sticking the camera up to their bedroom window or filming kids which can get you into some deep poo! If this was unlawful then the BBC and all the others would not be able to film in your local high street or do their "to camera piece" at an incident without getting everyones permission.

I am not saying you are but sometimes people can be confused with laws here and in the US due to all their cop programmes on TV.

Your last point about firms investigating sickness is a good one. If only more did this you are right it would save them money and best of all it would create more work for us.
 
tomengineer said:
European Commission warns UK over privacy legislation
The European Commission (EC) appears to be less than happy with the UK government and its implementation of data privacy legislation.

[url]http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/4939/european-commission-warns-uk-over-privacy-legislation/[/URL]
Click to expand...

A victory in common sense I think.

As for my previous post, I was just drawing parallels between similar situations.

It would be good for the industry if this was the case,there again, so would private security (or was it? see Blackwater) but I have a feeling you'd be in the minority as regards implementation.
Your dealing with a massive leviathan of working rights and contractual agreements ,which, I can guarantee you, wont be changing to include such clauses.
On a personal level, being the guy who investigates such, you would be as popular as Jesse Jackson at a Klan meeting ;)

Fwog
 
I've come in a bit late on this but as a RIPA trainer hopefully I can help.

There is categorically nothing in law to prevent or restrict anybody from conducting any form of covert surveillance against anybody for any reason whatsoever. Even if a public body, which is able to authorise under RIPA, chooses not to do so, this is not in any way unlawful. If, however, as a result of covert surveillance a person's Article 8 rights (under the HRA98) are interfered with, that public body may be liable for civil damages. That still doesn't make the surveillance unlawful, it just means that an Article 8 interference has occurred.

The important point here is that RIPA does not make surveillance lawful because surveillance is not remotely unlawful (unless it involves some kind of trespass or harrassment). Section 80 of RIPA (one for the trainspotters) makes this point absolutely clear. RIPA is simply a statutory insurance policy available to some, but not all public bodies, which will prevent successful civil action for an Article 8 interference. I often liken it to travel insurance - not mandatory but sometimes a good idea.

So local authorities can carry out any form of surveillance they wish for any purpose they wish. They may not be able to apply for the RIPA insurance in certain circumstances but the surveillance itself is always wholly lawful. This means that contrary to the recent media hype, local authorites can indeed conduct what we would call intrusive surveillance activity.

Private individuals and private companies cannot obviously apply for a RIPA authorisation but, fortunately, neither can they interfere with Article 8 (unless acting as an agent for a public body). So again, any surveillance they undertake will always be lawful.

Maybe one day things will change but for the moment, surveillance is never unlawful no matter who undertakes and regardless of whether a RIPA authorisation is in place.
 
romark said:
matadon16
You obviously need to speak to a lawer but if the evidence you have is very strong a judge may rule it admissable. The below link refers to an employment tribunal in 2006 but it may be relevent to you.

[URL="http://www.thomasmore.co.uk/ImageLibrary/Inpractice_APorter.pdf"][url]http://www.thomasmore.co.uk/ImageLibrary/Inpractice_APorter.pdf[/URL][/URL]

fwog

This discussion is about RIPA which controls surveillance by Police and Local Authorities. Your points concern actions outside of this and are not therefore regulated unless you step outside certain other laws such as DPA and HRA.

Banks and others only have that pre recorded message as it tends to minimise abuse and also attempts to stop people telling miss truths.

If I call a public body or anyone else for that matter and record that conversation then that recording can be used as evidence but it will be up to a judge to decide on the day in court.

It is ok to film anyone whether for a sickness investigation or otherwise as long as you don't breach their Human Rights such as sticking the camera up to their bedroom window or filming kids which can get you into some deep poo! If this was unlawful then the BBC and all the others would not be able to film in your local high street or do their "to camera piece" at an incident without getting everyones permission.

I am not saying you are but sometimes people can be confused with laws here and in the US due to all their cop programmes on TV.

Your last point about firms investigating sickness is a good one. If only more did this you are right it would save them money and best of all it would create more work for us.
Click to expand...

The devil is in the detail.

This post is correct. It is OK to film people in the street and conduct surveillance in cases of sickness (subject to usual DPA and HRA considerations).

The exception is if the surveillance to conducted by a public authority as defined by RIPA which was stated in the original post (end client being a local authority).

Here the rules are very different and there is no scope for conducting directed or intrusive surveillance of a subject for sickness (eg not a criminal act). RIPA authorisations cannot be granted for dog fouling, people putting their bins out too early dropping litter etc.

The Surveillance Commissioner has repeatedly taken public authoritries to task for doing so, but they continue to do so because they are either unaware of their obligations or too arrogant to think that the rules apply to them.

Now I am quite happy to be proved wrong in my opinion, if someone would care to quote the bit of law that applies.

Ilker
 
ilk said:
...there is no scope for conducting directed or intrusive surveillance of a subject for sickness (eg not a criminal act). RIPA authorisations cannot be granted for dog fouling, people putting their bins out too early dropping litter etc.

The Surveillance Commissioner has repeatedly taken public authoritries to task for doing so, but they continue to do so because they are either unaware of their obligations or too arrogant to think that the rules apply to them.
Click to expand...

Firstly, as I hope my previous post makes clear, there is nothing to stop local authorities from conducting covert surveillance of any kind whether for a non-criminal act or otherwise. Without wishing to repeat my earlier post, RIPA does not make surveillance legal because it is not illegal.

Yes, the Surveillance Commissioners have criticised LA's for doing so but they have absolutely no right to do so. LAs can conduct intrusive surveillance but they can't authorise it under the Act.

If it helps, I've written a short paper on this subject which I'm more than happy to send to anyone who PMs me.
 
Ilk (and others)

I strongly suggest you take up blueonezero's offer and read his article and you may start to understand why RIPA was introduced and how it does not restrict surveillance by the the Police or local authorities.

Also his web site has a very good flow chart for LA's to follow.

[url]http://blueonezero.co.uk/7.html[/URL]

I have just found this case that went before the Investgatory Powers Tribunal that highlights perfectly that RIPA is not needed by Police or HA's with regard to sickness cases.

[url]http://www.informationlaw.org.uk/USERIMAGES/cvpoliceripa.pdf[/URL]
 
I urge everyone to read it, including the LGA and many national newspapers.

The light bulb above my head is still shining!!!!
 
blueonezero said:
I've come in a bit late on this but as a RIPA trainer hopefully I can help.

There is categorically nothing in law to prevent or restrict anybody from conducting any form of covert surveillance against anybody for any reason whatsoever. Even if a public body, which is able to authorise under RIPA, chooses not to do so, this is not in any way unlawful. If, however, as a result of covert surveillance a person's Article 8 rights (under the HRA98) are interfered with, that public body may be liable for civil damages. That still doesn't make the surveillance unlawful, it just means that an Article 8 interference has occurred.

The important point here is that RIPA does not make surveillance lawful because surveillance is not remotely unlawful (unless it involves some kind of trespass or harrassment). Section 80 of RIPA (one for the trainspotters) makes this point absolutely clear. RIPA is simply a statutory insurance policy available to some, but not all public bodies, which will prevent successful civil action for an Article 8 interference. I often liken it to travel insurance - not mandatory but sometimes a good idea.

So local authorities can carry out any form of surveillance they wish for any purpose they wish. They may not be able to apply for the RIPA insurance in certain circumstances but the surveillance itself is always wholly lawful. This means that contrary to the recent media hype, local authorites can indeed conduct what we would call intrusive surveillance activity.

Private individuals and private companies cannot obviously apply for a RIPA authorisation but, fortunately, neither can they interfere with Article 8 (unless acting as an agent for a public body). So again, any surveillance they undertake will always be lawful.

Maybe one day things will change but for the moment, surveillance is never unlawful no matter who undertakes and regardless of whether a RIPA authorisation is in place.
Click to expand...

At what point would a surveillance be considered Harrasment? Would I be right to assume that you have to have been compromised and the Police called and the Surveillance Operative warned under the Prevention of Harrassment act?

intrinsic
 
Intrinsic,

 The Act states that a person must not pursue a course of conduct which he/she knows (or ought to know) amounts to the harassment of another.

 It is not necessary to prove that the person intended that his/her conduct amounted to harassment. The test is whether a reasonable person, who had the same information would think that it amounted to harassment. It does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows:

• That it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime

• That it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment or

• That in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable

 Definition

 Harassment is not defined by the Act, the courts will probably have to rely upon the dictionary definition (to worry, pester, annoy, distress). Factors which may be taken into account include:

 • Where and when the conduct (harassment) occurred
 • The relationship between the harasser and victim, and
 • The previous dealings between the parties

 In criminal proceedings, harassment must have occurred on at least two occasions, although a civil claim may succeed where there has only been one incident, especially if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the harassment may occur again.

Criminal Offence of Harassment

 The Act creates two criminal offences:

 • Harassment

 It is an offence to pursue a course of conduct which amounts to the harassment of another when the harasser knows (or ought to know) his conduct amounts to harassment.

• Causing Fear of Violence

 This is a more serious offence. The offence is committed if a person’s course of conduct causes another person to fear, on at least two occasions, that violence will be used against him/her.

 This offence can be tried at the Crown Court. The maximum sentence is five years imprisonment, unlimited fine or both.

 Civil Offence of Harassment

 A person who is or may be the victim of a course of conduct amounting to harassment can bring a civil action. This claim will be heard in the County Court or in the High Court. The Court can award damages including damages for anxiety and any resulting financial loss.

 The victim or potential victim can also ask the Court to grant an injunction restraining the person from any conduct which amounts to harassment. If the person does anything which is prohibited by that injunction, he or she can be sentenced to imprisonment for contempt of Court.

 In Your Defence

 It is a defence to show that the person’s course of conduct was instigated for the prevention or detection of crime, or was authorised by statute (bailiff), or it was reasonable for purposes of protecting him/herself or another person or property.

Cheers

Peter @ ISS
 
The article written by Blueonezero is excellent and clears many ambiguities and myths.

The press and others have jumped on the bandwagon for headlines and clearly have not done their research, because if they had done so, they certainly would not incorrectly quote the legislation as "anti terror laws".

From my experience many police officers would also benefit from reading the article as well.
 
Back
Top