RIPA, Virgin Media/Detica

Dear Sir or Madam,
In order for this request for information to be considered as a freedom
of information request could you please provide your name in order to
meet the criterion defined under section 8 of the Act!
Regards,
Jim Conlin

show quoted sections

Dear Mr John,

Enquiry Ref : 2009/2253

I acknowledge receipt of your enquiry requesting information concerning RIPA & Cleveland Police.

As set out by the Freedom of Information Act it will be our aim to respond to your request by 25 January 2010. In some cases, however, we may be unable to achieve this deadline. If this occurs we will advise you of the likely timescale within which the response will be provided.

If you have any questions regarding your request please contact me.

Addressing me as Jim Will be fine!

Yours sincerely,

Jim Conlin
FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information
Cleveland Police
Wetherby House
Tel 01642 306825

show quoted sections

Dear Mr John,

Enquiry 2253/09

Please accept my apologies for the delay in providing a response to your request resulting in your need to chase me up on the subject 26.01.10); I hope this has not been of inconvenience to you.

You asked:

Q1)Please could you confirm, RIPA Part I states that it is "an offence for a person intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication in the course of its transmission" and on conviction "to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".
A1) The freedom of information Act 2000 (The Act) is in relation to recorded information, with an exemption to the requirement for an authority to provide the information upon request being, Section 21 Information accessible by other means. It is not for an authority to confirm or not the wording of legislation, if you visit the likes of the google search engine and type in "regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, this will take you to the "opsi.gov" site and direct access to the act itself, thus fulfilling the requirement of Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Q4)Please could you confirm to me that Cleveland Police have a responsibility to record and investigate reports of serious criminal offences by residents of Middlesbrough, including reports of serious criminal offences by Internet Service Providers under RIPA Part I.
A4) We as a force comply with the National Crime Recording Standards NCRS) which states:

ALL REPORTS OF INCIDENTS, WHETHER FROM VICTIMS, WITNESSES OR THIRD PARTIES AND WHETHER CRIME RELATED OR NOT, WILL RESULT IN THE REGISTRATION OF AN INCIDENT REPORT BY THE POLICE.

Under the general interpretation of principles within the rules it states

The reasons for registering all incidents include the need to ensure forces have all available information in relation to possible crimes in their area and to allow an audit trail to be created, to ensure consistency of crime recording between forces. Where a report is recorded as a crime initially (e.g. telephone report direct to Crime Management Unit), it is not necessary that an incident report is also created. However, where the report is not initially recorded as a crime, an auditable incident report should be registered (whether on the Force Incident System or some other accessible and auditable means).

When examining a report of an incident regarding offences related to identified victims, the test to be applied in respect of recording a crime is that of the balance of probabilities: that is to say is the incident more likely than not the result of a criminal act? In most cases, a belief by the victim (or person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim) that a crime has occurred is sufficient to justify its recording as a crime, although this will not be the case in all circumstances. Effectively, a more victim oriented approach is advocated.

The degree to which police forces investigate an initial report from a victim or person reasonably assumed to be acting on behalf of the victim to establish whether a crime has occurred or not will vary with the circumstances of the report. Such investigation may range from questioning over the telephone when the initial report is made, to fuller investigation of the circumstances surrounding the allegation. However, it is envisaged such further investigations, to facilitate the crime recording decision, would be the exception, not the norm, as a victim focused approach is to be taken.

In addition as police officers are bound by the code of practice under the criminal procedure and Investigations Act 1996 this states:

'There is a duty under the code for an investigator to pursue all reasonable lines of enquiry, whether these point towards or away from a suspect. What is reasonable will depend upon the circumstances of a particular case'

In relation to your question under RIPA sections 11(1) (2) (7), 11(4) (7), 19(4), 53 and 54 are recordable.

Q5)Given that RIPA Part I creates a criminal offence of unlawful interception, please could you explain why officers in Middlesbrough refuse to record or investigate reports of a criminal offence of unlawful interception, suggesting that it is a 'civil matter'?
A5) I do not believe that this question is a valid request under The Act and would be more appropriately dealt with as a complaint against the Force, to do this you can in the first instance visit our web site www.cleveland.police.uk and at the bottom left of the home page you can click on "Complaints Procedure" and within that section it will provide you with practical advice on this subject, you can contact our professional standards department via the telephone on 01642 306834,or write in with thorough details of your complaint to:
Professional Standards Department
Police Headquarters,
Ladgate Lane,
Middlesbrough,
TS8 9EH

Alternatively you can call into any Police station and ask for your complaint to be recorded.

Regarding your second and third questions, enquiries have been made and followed up within the force and at this point I have not received any information that would furnish you with a reply to your requests made, I will endeavour to keep you updated re my progress.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Conlin
FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information
Cleveland Police
Wetherby House
Tel 01642 306825

show quoted sections

Dear Mr John,

Enquiry Ref : 2009/2253

Further to my partial reply to you on the 28th January 2010 in connection with your request for information dated 23 December 2009 concerning RIPA 2000.

In your questions 2 and 3 you asked:

Q2 - Please could you disclose directions to Cleveland Police from the Secretary of State concerning the application of RIPA Part I (interception) to Internet Service Providers, or the companies Virgin Media/Detica since 1 January 2006.
Q3 - Please could you disclose correspondence between Cleveland Police, and the Home Office OSCT Intelligence and Security Liaison Unit (ISLU) (or any other unit in the Home Office) concerning the application of RIPA Part I (interception) to Internet Service Providers, or the companies Virgin Media/Detica since 1 January 2006.

Having made enquiries, sort advice and considering that a reply under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, is a reply to the World at large and not just a single applicant,irrespective of the motives of the applicant, my reply must be that Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any information relevant to warrants issued for the interception of data held by Internet Service Providers as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions.

Section 23(5) Information supplied by or concerning certain Security Bodies
Section 40(5)(b)(i) Personal Information
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 30(3) Investigations
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Sections 23 and 40 are class based absolute exemptions and there is no requirement to consider the public interest test in this area.
Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and consideration must be given as to whether there is a public interest in neither confirming nor denying the information exists is the appropriate response.

With Sections 24 and 31 being prejudice based qualified exemptions there is a requirement to articulate the harm that would be caused in confirming or not that the information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test(PIT).

Harm and Public Interest Considerations with regard to Confirming or Denying that the Information is held:

Harm (Section 24 and 31)

Disclosure would undermine section 19 of the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act and could be considered to be a clear breach of the legislation.

It could also undermine tactical capability and compromise any ongoing or future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the UK.

PIT (section 24, 30 and 31)

For
The Police Service is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we serve and there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations.

The public could be reassured that the RIPA legislation and its use is highly regulated and audited.

Against
It could by argued that by confirming that the information is held would make the community at large aware of circumstances around the interception of data. This knowledge would enable them to behave differently and work outside of the law.

By citing exemptions or stating 'no information held' would identify investigative activity and potentially undermine any current ongoing covert investigations. Such action could undermine the security and/or infrastructure of the United Kingdom.

Modern-day policing is intelligence led and the Police Service share information with other law enforcement agencies as part of the intelligence gathering process. Irrespective of whether information is or isn't held, the Police Service will never confirm details which could undermine the partnership approach of information sharing or any investigation.

Balancing Test
Public safety and the security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police Service will not divulge whether information is or isn't held if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine National Security. Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.

No inference can be taken from this refusal that the information you have requested does or does not exist.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request that we review your case under our review procedure. If you decide to request that such a review is undertaken and following this process you are still dissatisfied you then have the right to direct your complaint to the Information Commissioner for consideration.

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Conlin
FOI Decision Maker
Freedom of Information
Cleveland Police
Wetherby House
Tel 01642 306825

show quoted sections