KEEPING OF RECORDS paras 7.1 to 7.3
KEEPING OF RECORDS
7.1 Public authorities must retain copies of all written applications for permission to give a section 49 notice. Such applications must be available for scrutiny by the relevant independent Commissioner with a statutory oversight role.[16] Public authorities may be required to justify to the Commissioner the content of a particular application, or their general approach to, and handling of applications and giving of notices.
- [16] See Section 11 of this Code.
7.2 All public authorities must maintain a central record of all applications for appropriate permission to give notices, of the grant of appropriate permission, of the giving of all notices and of compliance with each notice. These records must be available for inspection by the relevant Commissioner and retained to allow the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, established under Part IV of the Act, to carry out its functions.[17]
- [17] The Tribunal will consider complaints made up to one year after the conduct to which the complaint relates and, where it is satisfied it is equitable to do so, may consider complaints made more than one year after the conduct to which the complaint relates. See section 67(5) of the Act.
7.3 This Code of Practice does not affect any other statutory obligations placed on public records to keep records under any other enactment. For example, where applicable in England and Wales, the relevant test given in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 as amended and the Code of Practice under that Act. This requires that material which is obtained in the course of an investigation and which may be relevant to the investigation must be recorded, retained and revealed to the prosecutor.
Comments
Footonote [17]
does not seem to take account of the "tipping off" secrecy provisions in Part III.
What if the "tipping off" secrecy provisions last for more than a year ?
What if the complainant does not know that his private Encryption Key, or or shared Encryption Key which he uses, key and his commercial confidentiality or his ECCHR Article 8 fundamental human right of the "privacy of his te family life and correspondence", has been compromised or betrayed by an abuse of the Section 49 key Disclosure Notice mechanism, for more than a year ?
Why should the Tribunal be restricted from hearing complaints, no matter when the alleged misconduct happened ?
Why is the Tribunal only limited under this Part III CoP and not any other part of RIPA ?
Surely it is not anticipated that there will be very many cases for the Tribunal to consider in any year ?
Posted by: wtwu | June 28, 2006 1:19 AM