DOCSLIB.ORG

IPCO Annual Report 2017 3

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IPCO Annual Report 2017 3 Annual Report 2017 HC 1780 Annual Report of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner 2017 Including pre-September 2017 oversight by the: Chief Surveillance Commissioner Intelligence Services Commissioner Interception of Communications Commissioner Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 234(6)&(8) of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 31 January 2019 Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers 31 January 2019 HC 1780 SG/2019/8 © Crown copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected] ISBN 978-1-5286-0971-5 CCS0119377508 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. IPCO Annual Report 2017 3 Contents Letter to the Prime Minister 5 1. Introduction by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner Lord Justice Fulford 6 2. IPA Implementation and the Establishment of IPCO 8 3. Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) 13 4. Surveillance 23 5. Property Interference (including equipment interference) 32 6. Investigation of Protected Information 38 7. Interception 40 8. Targeted Communications Data 49 9. Bulk Communications Data 61 10. Bulk Personal Datasets 69 11. Intelligence Services Act 1994 – Section 7 Authorisations 75 12. Consolidated Guidance 79 13. Prisons 84 14. Errors and Breaches 90 15. Engagement with the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and other bodies 106 16. IPCO and predecessors’ budgets 107 17. Annex A: Communications Data acquisition by public authority 109 18. Annex B : Serious Error Investigations 114 19. Glossary for Public Authority Categories 128 IPCO Annual Report 2017 5 Letter to the Prime Minister The Rt Hon. Theresa May MP Prime Minister 10 Downing Street London SW1A 2AA December 2018 Dear Prime Minister, I enclose my first Annual Report covering the work of the three precursor organisations, namely the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners (OSC), the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s Office (IOCCO) and the Intelligence Service Commissioner (ISComm), from 1 January 2017 until 31 August 2017, and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO) from 1 September until 31 December 2017. I have continued the tradition of writing the Report in two parts. The Confidential Annex contains details, including techniques and operational matters, which should not be published for reasons of national security. It is for you to determine, after consultation with me, how much of this open report should be published without releasing any material which would be contrary to the public interest, or prejudicial to national security, to the prevention or detection of serious crime, to the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, or to the discharge of the functions of those public authorities subject to my review. I wish to pay tribute to the fine work undertaken by the three bodies who preceded IPCO and to the last Commissioners who led them: Lord Judge (OSC), Sir Mark Waller, succeeded by Sir John Goldring (ISComm) and Sir Stanley Burnton (IOCCO). They provided the critical foundations for the creation of IPCO and what I hope will be the successful oversight of investigatory powers. Yours sincerely The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Fulford The Investigatory Powers Commissioner 6 IPCO Annual Report 2017 1. Introduction by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner Lord Justice Fulford 1.1 One of my statutory obligations, which I am very pleased to discharge, is to report to the Prime Minister annually about “the carrying out of the functions of the Judicial Commissioners”. My Report must address a range of issues, including: • statistics on the use of the relevant investigatory powers, such as the number of warrants received, how they were used by the individual applicant authorities and the impact of their use; • the operation of the safeguards under the Act in relation to material covered by legal professional privilege and confidential journalistic material and sources; • the ways in which certain targeted warrants were handled; • details of the operational purposes, as set out in the warrants; • the number of errors reported to IPCO, and the number of individuals to whom we provided relevant information as a consequence of the errors; • details of the work of the Technology Advisory Panel (TAP); • an explanation of our resources; and • the public engagements undertaken by the Judicial Commissioners and members of my staff. 1.2 On the surface for 2017 this appears to be a deceptively straightforward task. The reality has been a positive refinement of complication because three quarters of the period (viz. prior to 1 September 2017) relates to the work of our three precursor organisations, the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (Lord Judge), the Intelligence Services Commissioner (Sir John Goldring) and the Interception of Communications Commissioner (Sir Stanley Burnton). In addition, many of the powers contained in the IPA did not come into effect until 2018, and thereby fall outside the ambit of this Report. Otherwise, we have been involved in setting up my new organisation, putting in place the people, infrastructure and systems that have enabled us to function; for instance, with the TAP, although work has been started by that body in 2018, in 2017 we were recruiting its members and beginning the process of applying for their security clearance. 1.3 One of the dominant features of 2017 (extending into 2018) has been the task of unifying these three very different organisations into a single structure. There were marked differences in how they carried out their work, to say nothing of the variety of powers over which they each had oversight. A cursory glance at their annual reports reveals the divergence in style and content as between my predecessor organisations. That is not meant to sound any kind of critical note; to the contrary, the work of each of them was exemplary but fusing their separate, and impressive, legacies into a single, coherent structure has been a formidably challenging task. IPCO Annual Report 2017 7 1.4 In one sense, therefore, this Preface contains an apology and an excuse. This 2017 Report has undoubted limitations, mainly as a consequence of the difficulties I have just described. Most particularly, it is uneven as regards the content on the different investigative powers and there is a lack of balance between the security services, on the one hand, and the law enforcement agencies, on the other. This is particularly evident because we have structured the Report around the different types of investigatory powers, in part to reflect the unified approach to oversight that is to be adopted. Although our inspectors have different areas of expertise, we will ensure the boundaries between the three precursor organisations are not replicated within IPCO. 1.5 In what follows, we have attempted to provide relevant background information and a summary description of each of the powers. 1.6 Although there was some concern as to whether IPCO would be ready to begin operating on 1 September 2017, and whether we would delay the security and law enforcement agencies in their work, I am confident that on our record to date we have dispelled those anxieties. I have received no complaints that the applications for warrants have been handled inefficiently, and we have complied with – indeed, we routinely and significantly exceed – the agreement as to the length of time the Judicial Commissioners will take to resolve the applications. There has been no suggestion that the arrival of IPCO has hampered the law enforcement and security agencies in their work and I am delighted at the arms-length but cooperative relationship that has been developed with all the organisations for which we have oversight responsibility. I am very grateful for the generous approach of all and the considerable assistance that was provided in helping set up this new organisation. The Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Security Services and all the law enforcement agencies have been highly co-operative. The practical and administrative support, along with the many extremely effective briefings that were laid on for the Judicial Commissioners and our staff, have been time consuming for those involved in providing this help and of incalculable benefit to IPCO. 1.7 Although in 2017 I was principally focused on meeting the domestic public authorities who utilise investigatory powers, during October I led a team from IPCO to the ‘Five-Eyes’ Conference in Ottawa in Canada (the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand), which was an extremely useful first step in establishing what I hope will be a lasting and mutually supportive relationship between the Oversight Bodies in our closely-allied countries. I gave a speech in Washington at the Centre for a New American Security. I visited the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and I met with various representatives of the American intelligence Community, including the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. In November I visited the Dutch Oversight Body (CTIVD), as the first instalment in a series of meetings with the oversight bodies of EU countries. 1.8 It has been during 2018 that my engagement with international bodies, the media and civil society has developed but it is to be noted that we involved key representatives from civil society in the induction and training programme for the Judicial Commissioners in November 2017. 1.9 Overall, I have been extremely pleased at what IPCO achieved in 2017, and I am cautiously optimistic that, with the considerable assistance of others, we laid foundations for the successful oversight of investigatory powers in the years to come.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dover Police
    PORT OF DOVER POLICE “Delivering Safety and Security for Our Customers” Our ref: FOI 2021-046 16th March 2021 [email protected] Dear Arthur Coulter, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST I refer to your Freedom of Information Act request dated 25th February 2021 in which you requested: Dear Port of Dover Police, Please provide the following information relevant to the driving authority held by your officers: - Are Port of Dover Police officers trained to operate vehicles under emergency conditions (equivalent to 'response/standard' level driving in Home Office forces)? - If so, who carries out this training – whether it is provided in house, by Kent Police or outsourced – and how many officers are trained to said level? Please also include copies of driving policies relevant to the operation of police vehicles. In response to your Freedom of Information Act request, I would draw your attention to:- Port of Dover Police Officers are nominated and appointed as ‘special constables’ under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers clauses Act of 1847 which was subsequently modified by Part IV of the Dover Harbour Revision Order 2006 (S.I. 2167) and section 7 of the Marine Navigation Act 2013. Schedule 1, Part V, Section 64 of the Freedom of Information Act which applies to:- Any person who- (a) By virtue of any enactment has the function of nominating individuals who may be appointed as special constables by Justices of the Peace, and, (b) Is not a public authority by virtue of any other provision of the Act, in respect of information relating to the exercise by any person appointed on his nomination of the functions of a special constable.
    [Show full text]
  • St 9617 2004 Dcl 1
    Council of the European Union Brussels, 30 November 2020 (OR. en) 9617/04 DCL 1 LIMITE SCH-EVAL 33 COMIX 344 DECLASSIFICATION of document: 9617/04 RESTREINT UE dated: 17 May 2004 new status: LIMITE Subject: Questionnaire – Questions to UK on data protection arrangements relating to the UK’s national implementation of the Schengen Information System. - Answers from the UK Delegations will find attached the declassified version of the above document. The text of this document is identical to the previous version. 9617/04 DCL 1 KAL SMART 2.C.S1 LIMITE EN RESTREINT UE COUNCIL OF Brussels, 17 May 2004 THE EUROPEAN UNION 9617/04 RESTREINT UE SCH-EVAL 33 COMIX 344 NOTE from : UK delegation to : Schengen Evaluation Working Party No. prev. doc. : 9227/04 SCH-EVAL 25 COMIX 308 + ADD 1 Subject : Questionnaire – Questions to UK on data protection arrangements relating to the UK’s national implementation of the Schengen Information System. - Answers from the UK The United Kingdom has asked the Schengen Evaluation Group to undertake an evaluation of the data protection arrangements which it has in place to support the introduction of the Schengen Information System to the UK. As the UK’s technical solution to the SIS has not yet been finalised, the questions relate only to data protection arrangements. Questions relating to the management and handling of the data will be answered in the context of the full SIS evaluation which will take place once the UK’s national solution has been fully implemented. 1. Provide the list of services with access to SIS data See Annex A and Annex B 9617/04 WvdR/kve 1 DG H RESTREINT UE EN RESTREINT UE 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Ministerial Correspondence Template
    Caroline Wall Maritime Security Compliance and Ports Policy Maritime Security & Resilience Division Department for Transport Zone 2/32 Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Mr D Llewelyn Tel: 020 7944 6252 E-Mail: [email protected] e-mail: Web site: www.gov.uk/dft [email protected] Our Ref : P0015467 15 December 2017 Dear Mr Llewelyn FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REGARDING PORT POLICE FORCES’ USE OF SECTION 7 OF THE MARINE NAVIGATION ACT Thank you for your information request of 20 November. You requested the following information: “On the 3rd July 2014 a written question was asked of the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to Ports Police and section 7 of the Marine Navigation Act 2013. The reply was made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 9th July. I have copied the relevant extract from Hansard below: "Police: Ports:Written question - 203891 Q Asked by Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) Asked on: 03 July 2014 Department for Transport Police: Ports 203891 To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment he has made of the extent to which chief officers of territorial police forces have used the Marine Navigation Act 2013 to permit port constables to act outside their port area for policing purposes connected with the port constable's police area. A Answered by: Stephen Hammond Answered on: 09 July 2014 Of the six English port police forces, able to use the Marine Navigation Act, the port police forces for Bristol, Dover and Teesport have sought and received the consent of the Chief Constable of the relevant territorial police force to exercise certain powers outside their port area, while a fourth, Liverpool Port Police, is currently seeking it." Please provide any relevant correspondence/information/documents that were used to assist the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in giving this answer.
    [Show full text]
  • ENGLISH REFORMS to JUDICIAL SELECTION: COMPARATIVE LESSONS for AMERICAN STATES? Judith L
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Fordham University School of Law Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 34 | Number 1 Article 13 2007 ENGLISH REFORMS TO JUDICIAL SELECTION: COMPARATIVE LESSONS FOR AMERICAN STATES? Judith L. Maute University of Oklahoma College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Accounting Law Commons Recommended Citation Judith L. Maute, ENGLISH REFORMS TO JUDICIAL SELECTION: COMPARATIVE LESSONS FOR AMERICAN STATES? , 34 Fordham Urb. L.J. 387 (2007). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol34/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENGLISH REFORMS TO JUDICIAL SELECTION: COMPARATIVE LESSONS FOR AMERICAN STATES? Cover Page Footnote William J. Alley Professor of Law, President’s Associates Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma College of Law. J.D. 1978, University of Pittsburgh; LL.M. 1982, Yale University. The uthora gratefully acknowledges comments from Kate Malleson, Department of Law at Queen Mary, University of London, research assistance from Adam L. Mitchell, J.D. (University of Oklahoma 2006), and financial support from the University of Oklahoma. This article is available in Fordham Urban Law Journal: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol34/iss1/13 \\server05\productn\F\FUJ\34-1\FUJ114.txt unknown Seq: 1 12-APR-07 9:47 ENGLISH REFORMS TO JUDICIAL SELECTION: COMPARATIVE LESSONS FOR AMERICAN STATES? Judith L.
    [Show full text]
  • Dover Police
    PORT OF DOVER POLICE “Delivering Safety and Security for Our Customers” Our ref: FOI 2017-059 Diane Amos [email protected] 29th March 2017 Dear Diane Amos, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST I refer to your Freedom of Information Act request dated 5th March 2017 in which you requested: please provide an organisational chart that shows the current make-up and rank structure of your police force (including post holder details). I addition, please provide details of the professional and nationally accredited rank specific qualifications, including dates obtained, that allows the role holders (for clarity, Sergeants, Inspectors and above, ) to comply with all national legislation and guidance that is applicable to all police forces. In response to your Freedom of Information Act request, I would draw your attention to:- Port of Dover Police Officers are nominated and appointed as ‘special constables’ under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers clauses Act of 1847 which was subsequently modified by Part IV of the Dover Harbour Revision Order 2006 (S.I. 2167) and section 7 of the Marine Navigation Act 2013. Schedule 1, Part V, Section 64 of the Freedom of Information Act which applies to:- Any person who- (a) By virtue of any enactment has the function of nominating individuals who may be appointed as special constables by Justices of the Peace, and, (b) Is not a public authority by virtue of any other provision of the Act, in respect of information relating to the exercise by any person appointed on his nomination of the functions of a special constable.
    [Show full text]
  • Truth? Justice? Accountability?
    Truth? Justice? Accountability? Modern Challenges of Major Inquests & Inquiries 2018 Contents Programme Talk Speakers Inquests, Inquiries & Group Actions Connect with Chambers Members of Chambers Programme 5.30pm: Registration 6pm: Introduction Major Inquiries & Inquests by Matthew Hill Secrecy & Sensitive Information by Emma Louise Fenelon When are Inquiries and Inquests Granted? by Gideon Barth 7pm: Panel discussion with Deborah Coles, Sir Neil Garnham, Dame Christina Lambert & Peter Skelton QC 7.30pm: Drinks Reception © 1 Crown Office Row 1 MAJOR INQUIRIES AND INQUESTS – LESSONS AND WARNINGS FROM BLOODY SUNDAY AND HILLSBOROUGH Matthew Hill Introduction 1. On 30 January 1972, 13 people were shot and killed in Derry/Londonderry by members of the Parachute Regiment. An inquiry was established into the circumstances of the deaths, chaired by Lord Widgery, then the Lord Chief Justice. His conclusions, which included a “strong suspicion” that some of those who had died had been handling weapons, were widely condemned as a whitewash. The events of the day remained an open sore in the city and beyond. A lengthy campaign by the families, adopted by academics, politicians and journalists, followed. A quarter of a century later a fresh inquiry was ordered. The conclusions exonerated all of those who died, laid blame at state actors for the deaths and vindicated those who had campaigned over the decades. Sadly, many relatives of those who died did not live to see the outcome for which they had fought. 2. On 15 April 1989, 96 people received fatal injuries during a crush at a football match at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield. An inquiry was established into the circumstances of the deaths, chaired by Lord Justice Taylor, later the Lord Chief Justice.
    [Show full text]
  • 9. Claimants' Amended Grounds
    IN THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL B E T W E E N: (1) PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL (2) REPRIEVE (3) COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (4) PAT FINUCANE CENTRE (2) Claimants - and - (1) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (2)(3) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (3)(4) GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS HEADQUARTERS (4)(5) SECURITY SERVICE (5)(6) SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE Defendants AMENDED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS INTRODUCTION 1. These proceedings concern twoa directions issued by the Prime Minister, requiring the Intelligence Services Commissioner (the “IS Commissioner”) and now the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (the “IP Commissioner”) to oversee unspecified covert activities by one or more of the Government Communication Headquarters (“GCHQ”), the Secret Intelligence Service (“SIS”) and the Security Service (together the “Agencies”). The contents of the direction, even its subject matter, are were secret but were been disclosed after this claim was issued. These secret activities were and are sufficiently serious that the Prime Minister considers they require statutory oversight. 1 2. On 6 March 2018 the previously secret current and former directions were published. They are concerned with the “application of the Security Service guidelines on the use of agents who participate in criminality and authorisations issued in accordance with them”. No such guidelines have ever been published, in whole or in part. The “guidelines” therefore purport to authorise criminal conduct in accordance with an undisclosed and secret policy. 2.3. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is the minister responsible for GCHQ and SIS. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is the minister responsible for the Security Service.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2008/09 T Men SELECTING the BEST for the DELIVERY of JUSTICE Ts Commi Ss Ion
    JUDI C I al APPOIN ANNUAL REPORT 2008/09 T MEN SELECTING THE BEST FOR THE DELIVERY OF JUSTICE ts COMMI ss ION ANNU al REPO rt 2008 / 09 ANNUAL REPORT AND ACCOUNTS 2008/09 SELECTING THE BEST FOR THE DELIVERY Of JUSTICE Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice pursuant to paragraph 32(4), and in respect of the financial statements on behalf of the Comptroller and Auditor General under paragraph 31(7) of Schedule 12 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 13 July 2009 HC 845 London: The Stationery Office £19.15 © Crown Copyright 2009 The text in this document (excluding the Royal Arms and other departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. For any other use of this material please write to Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU or e-mail: [email protected] ISBN: 9780102959604 CONTENTS Foreword 2 Part 1: Introduction 5 Who we are 6 What we do 9 Overview of the selection process 11 Part 2: Progress and improvements in 2008/09 19 Meeting the challenges 20 The selection exercise programme 21 Selection exercises in 2008/09 22 Delivering the selection exercises in 2008/09
    [Show full text]
  • Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: Current Issues the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament – Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: Current
    The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament – Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: CurrentThe Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Issues Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: Current Issues Chair: The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP CCS0518750650 978-1-5286-0476-5 HC 1114 Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Detainee Mistreatment and Rendition: Current Issues Chair: The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 28 June 2018 HC 1114 © Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament copyright 2018 (The material in Annex B is © Crown copyright 2010, 2011) The material must be acknowledged as Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us via our webform at isc.independent.gov.uk/contact This publication is also available on our website at: isc.independent.gov.uk ISBN 978-1-5286-0476-5 CCS0518750650 06/18 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the APS Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office THE INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE OF PARLIAMENT The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP (Chair)* The Rt Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • JUSTICE Launches Report “Increasing Judicial Diversity: an Update”
    Press release Under embargo until 1am on Wednesday 29 January 2020 JUSTICE launches report “Increasing Judicial Diversity: An Update” On 29 January 2020, JUSTICE launches its latest working party report, Increasing Judicial Diversity: An Update. This Update builds on JUSTICE’s 2017 Increasing Judicial Diversity report, which explored the structural barriers faced by women, BAME communities, solicitors and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds in reaching the bench. It assesses the progress that has been made since 2017, outlines areas that remain of critical concern and makes further recommendations for improving judicial diversity. Analysing appointments data since 2017, the Working Party has found that despite the clear case for increased judicial diversity, progress has remained slow. Although there have been some welcome headline achievements – including two more women Justices appointed to the Supreme Court, the appointment of four more solicitors to the High Court and the appointment of Sir Rabinder Singh to the Court of Appeal – most appointments to the senior courts have continued much as before. There has been some improvement in the percentages of women appointed to the Circuit and High Court bench, however the overall numbers remain low meaning that progress is fragile. The data demonstrates that there has been negligible improvement in respect of other underrepresented groups. The Working Party welcomes the adoption of some of its minor 2017 recommendations and ongoing efforts by the Judicial Appointments Commission. The Update concludes that the current approach to judicial diversity is not working. It urges large scale structural and cultural change to deliver a more diverse judiciary. To this end, our recommendations include: • A system of proper accountability to ensure that the commitment to change is backed up by practical steps and, importantly, results.
    [Show full text]
  • Port of Dover Police
    Port of Dover Police The Port of Dover encloses 330 hectares. Most of the trade passing through the Port consists of the inward and outward flow of passengers, both ferry and cruise, roll on/roll off passenger and freight vehicles and some conventional cargoes such as fruit and grain. The Port complex is divided into the Eastern and Western Docks (which includes two Cruise Terminals) and now constitutes the busiest international drive on/drive off terminal in the world. The Port of Dover reguarly handles in excess of 12 million passengers, 2.1 million tourist vehicles and 2.5 million commercial freight vehicles per anum. Full details are available on the Port of Dover website www.doverport.co.uk/about There are two cross channel ferry companies operating out of the Eastern Docks; P&O Ferries & DFDS Seaways. Frequently asked questions 1. Who funds Port of Dover Police (PoDP)? The Port of Dover Police is owned, operated and funded by the Port Authority, Dover Harbour Board. The Port of Dover Police do not receive any public funding. 2. What Police area does PoDP cover? As a non-Home Office Police force, the PoDP do not have a ‘police area’. Kent Police have responsibility for policing the whole of Kent, including the Port of Dover. However, the Dover Harbour Board choose to fund their own police force to cover the Port area only. There may be occasions when Kent Police would seek our assistance in dealing with local issues, but the jurisdiction of PoDP restricts the area in which their Constables can operate (1 mile from the property of Dover Harbour Board, which is extended in certain circumstances to cover Port related incidents).
    [Show full text]
  • Dover Police
    PORT OF DOVER POLICE “Delivering Safety and Security for Our Customers” Our ref: FOI 2021-112 19th May 2021 [email protected] Dear D. Schofield. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST I refer to your Freedom of Information Act request dated 11th May 2021 in which you requested: Dear Port of Dover Police, Would you be able to give me more information as to how crime statistics are recorded in Port Police forces? Are the numbers of arrests and crime reports made to you added onto the local Home Office force total or do you report them to the Home office/Office of National Statistics yourself? Do you have also have to follow Home office counting rules? In response to your Freedom of Information Act request, I would draw your attention to:- Port of Dover Police Officers are nominated and appointed as ‘special constables’ under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers clauses Act of 1847 which was subsequently modified by Part IV of the Dover Harbour Revision Order 2006 (S.I. 2167) and section 7 of the Marine Navigation Act 2013. Schedule 1, Part V, Section 64 of the Freedom of Information Act which applies to:- Any person who- (a) By virtue of any enactment has the function of nominating individuals who may be appointed as special constables by Justices of the Peace, and, (b) Is not a public authority by virtue of any other provision of the Act, in respect of information relating to the exercise by any person appointed on his nomination of the functions of a special constable.
    [Show full text]