PROTECT – PRIVATE POLICE EYES ONLY. Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. From: POLICE FOI REFERRAL Mailbox Sent: 23 October 2014 11:31 Subject: *** ALL TO READ *** RIPA REQUESTS Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear All Case Nos 1578/14; 1606/14; 1613/14/ 1629/14; 1631/14; 1636/14; 1638/14; 1672/14; 1690/14 By way of update I am currently compiling the result advice for the RIPA requests which should be circulated tomorrow morning, after the National Policing Lead has confirmed they are content with the advice. For requests submitted by the same applicant these can be aggregated together for cost purposes. For any force where Section 12 is relevant we are happy for you to issue a refusal notice and provide an explanation as to why cost is relevant. However, if a request just relates to comms data (e.g. case no 1440/14) there is no harm in including the number of RIPA applications that would require a manual search as the total number of comms data only by force has been disclosed previously and is published. With regard to requests asking for ALL RIPA APPLICATIONS, if it relates to several years of information, we can see no harm in stating how many RIPA applications you would have to search through in that time period for excess costs to apply. However, care should be taken for any requests which are asking for annualised financial year information for ALL RIPA requests which includes, comms data; directed surveillance and intrusive surveillance *************************************************************************** **************S31(1)(a)(b) within your explanation as to why cost is a factor. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards Heather - 1 – PROTECT – PRIVATE PROTECT – PRIVATE POLICE EYES ONLY. Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Date created: 23 October 2014 Caseworker: Heather Waller Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0844 892 9010 National Advice Regarding CRU Case No 001608/14 Avon & Somerset Constabulary Bedfordshire Police British Transport Police British Transport Police Cambridgeshire Constabulary Cheshire Constabulary City of London Police Cleveland Police CNC Cumbria Constabulary Derbyshire Constabulary Devon and Cornwall Constabulary Dorset Police Durham Constabulary Dyfed Powys Police Essex Police Gloucestershire Constabulary Greater Manchester Police Gwent Police Hampshire Constabulary Hertfordshire Constabulary - 2 – PROTECT – PRIVATE PROTECT – PRIVATE POLICE EYES ONLY. Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Humberside Police Kent Police Lancashire Constabulary Lincolnshire Police Merseyside Police MOD North Wales Police North Yorkshire Police Northamptonshire Police Northumbria Police Nottinghamshire Police PSNI South Wales Police South Yorkshire Police Staffordshire Police Suffolk Constabulary Surrey Police Thames Valley Police Warwickshire Police West Mercia Constabulary West Midlands Police West Yorkshire Police have received the below request submitted by *********S40(2). Q1: On how many occasions has your police force made Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act applications for information between 1/1/2000 and today’s date, 7 October 2014? Q2: Please provide a breakdown of many individual RIPA applications have been made in each year between 2000 and 2014. - 3 – PROTECT – PRIVATE PROTECT – PRIVATE POLICE EYES ONLY. Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Q3: Please describe the system on which the force’s RIPA records are held. CLARIFICATION TO NORTH WALES: Clarification Request: - Could you please clarify the kind of RIPA applications you are referring to? For example many applications are for surveillance or do you require information relating to RIPA applications for telecoms information? Clarification Response: - Could I please have all RIPA applications, please – surveillance and telecoms records. The advice from a national perspective is: North Wales Police has obtained clarification from the applicant and the advice has been compiled taking into account the applicant requires information for all RIPA applications. Background to this Request Numerous FOI requests have been received from individuals/journalists recently following the disclosure that the Interception of Communications Commissioner (IOCCO) has confirmed that he is to investigate whether police forces were overusing their powers to acquire communications data (see below links) and arises from the recent “Plebgate” affair where the MPS confirmed they had sought a journalist’s communications data as part of their investigation: http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/05/surveillance-watchdog-iocco-investigate- police-misuse-phone-data-deny-link-plebgate https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2014/09/14/gavin-millar-qc-routine- government-surveillance-of-journalists-communications-is-in-breach-of-international- law/ In addition to the above media releases other disclosures on the Press Gazette website state that Thames Valley Police and Kent Police have also admitted that they used RIPA in order to obtain data relating to the activities of journalists, see below links: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/fourth-police-force-admits-using-ripa-bug-journalists- car-says-seizure-agencys-phone-records-was http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/second-police-force-admits-using-ripa-spy-journalists- phone-records-and-out-confidential-sources Clearly it is too early to make any further comment on whether the police have carried out such activity until the IOCCO have completed their independent regulatory review and made comment. It is for this reason that care must be taken in not revealing police operational activity, despite the recent revelations by the MPS, Thames Valley - 4 – PROTECT – PRIVATE PROTECT – PRIVATE POLICE EYES ONLY. Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. Police and Kent Police. National Position A meeting was held in London last week between the CRU, relevant Stakeholders and the National Policing Lead for RIPA (Comms Data) to determine whether there should be any change in stance (from an FOI perspective). The following points were discussed: 1. The CRU was made aware that all Chief Constables had recently received a letter from the Home Affairs Select Committee seeking individual force RIPA data which in our opinion sits outside of FOI. Whilst the CRU Manager (Mark Wise) circulated an email to all forces advising that the opinion of the CRU was that the data can be provided as it sits outside of FOI legislation and should be treated as business as usual, further correspondence has since been sent to Chief officers from the National policing lead providing an update on further discussions with the HASC. 2. It was confirmed that the IOCCO has started an independent review into the use of RIPA, the outcome of which will result in a report being submitted to the Prime Minister with an intention to publish his findings. Some forces are reporting issues in the collection of the required data. Following deliberations it was agreed that with regard to point 1 this is completely separate to the FOI requests and has no impact on our stance. For point 2 discussions around the use of Section 22 Information Intended for Future Publication resulted in a general consensus that at this time Section 22 is not tenable. For information purposes and ease of reference I have provided below a breakdown of the national stance for the Interception of Communications; Acquisition of Communications Data; Directed and intrusive Surveillance 1. Interception of Communications The national advice provided in relation to previous requests remains unchanged and the agreed national perspective is that a NCND response should be given. 2. Acquisition of Communications Data Communications data information regarding volume is suitable for release. If the force has the capability to break down the figures into categories great care should be taken to have general categories so that small numbers of a particular crime category - 5 – PROTECT – PRIVATE PROTECT – PRIVATE POLICE EYES ONLY. Not to be distributed outside of the Police network or other agencies without prior authorisation from the CRU. does not identify that data communications has been requested and used as a tactic. It is also worthy of note that communications data is used to assist with all manner of police enquiries and is not necessarily associated with surveillance of individuals. Annual figures (financial year) only should be released. 3. Directed and Intrusive Surveillance. Directed surveillance (DSA) – DSA volume information is suitable for release. As with communications data, care should be taken with crime/offence categories in order not to reveal tactics against specific operations. Annual figures (financial year) only should be released. Intrusive Surveillance - The national advice provided in relation to previous requests remains unchanged and the agreed national perspective is that a NCND response should be given. Responding to this Requests Cost may be a factor for some forces dependent on how you store your information. If Section 12 is relevant to your force when issuing your refusal notice care should be taken that you do not inadvertently disclose an annualised total number