Report Council won approval to spy on number of suspected criminals
BRISTOL City council got judicial approval to secretly spy on a number of suspected criminals twice last year.
The methods used to conduct the covert surveillance and who was targeted have been kept secret.
But undercover officers and intercepting private phone calls and emails are among the tools that local authorities are legally able to use to conduct covert surveillance of their citizens.
These methods are only legal if they are used to prevent or detect a serious crime, or the underage sale of alcohol, tobacco and nicotine inhaling products, with the prior approval of a designated authorising officer and the Magistrates’ Court.
Bristol City Council’s use of the powers available to it under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000 was revealed during a meeting of its ethics and values sub-committee this week.
A report to the committee said: “In 2019/2020, Bristol City Council carried out surveillance authorised under RIPA twice.”
The council’s RIPA policy suggests it has three methods of covert surveillance at its disposal: “directed surveillance”, a “covert human intelligence source” (CHIS) and the acquisition of communications data. Each requires judicial approval.
Directed surveillance involves covert monitoring, observing, listening to people, watching or following their movements, listening to their conversations and other such activities or communications, according to the policy.
CHIS includes using undercover officers, public informants and people who make test purchases (for enforcement purposes).
“Directed surveillance will always be a last resort in an investigation, and use of a CHIS by the council is unlikely,” the policy states.
Tim O’Gara, senior officer responsible for RIPA at the council, said: “We carried out two RIPA authorisations in the period 2019 to 2020. Since the last inspection in 2016, those are the only two authorisations that this council has made.”
Mr O’Gara said the inspection was limited to the viewing of council records and a video interview with himself and another officer as the information provided demonstrated a level of compliance that removed the need for a physical inspection.
He said the recommendations made in the most recent inspection have been addressed and the council’s RIPA procedures updated accordingly.
Mr O’Gara said the next inspection by the IPCO would occur in three or four years’ time.
“I would have thought, given we are a fairly limited user of our RIPA powers, that that would also be a light-touch inspection at that time.”