The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) governs how public bodies use surveillance methods:  The Council may use covert surveillance for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or preventing disorder.  The Council’s Constitution authorises Directors to designate Heads of Service and Service Managers to authorise the use of covert surveillance in accordance with the procedures prescribed by RIPA.

A report by the Director of Law, HR and Asset Management summarised the use of covert surveillance by the Council between 1 June and 1 September 2011.  It was noted that within this time period seven authorisations for covert surveillance had been granted.  Two authorisations had been granted to obtain evidence of serious offences of fly-tipping at sites in the Borough where this offence had become a public nuisance.  One had led to a prosecution.  Five authorisations had been granted to obtain evidence of alleged anti-social behaviour.  One authorisation had provided evidence for possession proceedings and three authorisations were current.  Anti-social behaviour had included alleged racial harassment, intimidation, the lighting of fires in derelict property, criminal damage, drunken and abusive behaviour and the playing of loud music.

The Committee was informed that on the 26 January 2011 the Home Office had published its review focusing on which security powers could be scaled back in order to restore the balance of civil liberties, including the use of RIPA by local authorities and had made the following recommendations concerning local authorities:

·  Magistrate's approval should be required for local authority use of RIPA and should be in addition to the authorisation needed from a senior officer and the more general oversight by elected councillors.

·  Use of RIPA to authorise directed surveillance should be confined to cases where the offence under investigation carries a maximum custodial sentence of six months or more. But because of the importance of directed surveillance in corroborating investigations into underage sales of alcohol and tobacco, the Government should not seek to apply the threshold in these cases.

The Director reported that the above proposals have been incorporated in the draft legislation and are expected to be enacted in a year’s time.  If the Bill becomes law, it would become more difficult to obtain evidence of anti social behaviour.  Persistent acts of disorder and nuisance would not pass the threshold.  Witnesses would be more reluctant to give evidence if the outcome of the case was less certain because the evidence of covert surveillance was no longer available to prove they were telling the truth.  They would fear retaliation.  The change in the law would protect the right to privacy of suspected perpetrators of anti-social behaviour which would be regarded as a higher priority than the right of their victims to live peacefully and without fear.

Evidence obtained by authorised cover surveillance had been used to support civil proceedings for anti-social behaviour, and in prosecutions for fly-tipping, underage sales of tobacco, and of counterfeit goods.  It was a valuable resource for a local authority provided proper safeguards were in place to prevent its abuse.

RESOLVED: That

(1)  the contents of the reported be noted; and

(2)  more detail be included in future reports on the possible penalties that any convictions might incur.