1 in 75 council 'spy' probes lead to court

COUNCIL chiefs used controversial ‘spy’ powers on residents 75 times in two years – but only brought one prosecution.

Click the headline or link below to read the rest of this story.

Probe criticises council's 'spy' power use

AN official probe into council ‘spy’ powers criticised bosses for providing a ‘dearth of information’ to justify covert surveillance, The Silhillian can disclose.

A report by the Government’s information watchdog found failings at Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council with how ‘directed surveillance’ cases were approved.

Councils have been criticised over their use of the powers, which are allowed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and must be signed off by senior officers.

Solihull council, which is praised in the report for other use of the act, has used the powers to watch people suspected of letting their dogs foul, fly tipping and benefit fraud.

The report, the latest for the council, said: “An examination of applications for directed surveillance showed a generally high standard throughout.

“The information provided by the applicants provided sufficient information for the background and objectives of all the operations to be fully assessed.

“By contrast, the overall standard of authorisations could be substantially improved.

“In most cases, authorisations contain a dearth of information as a result of which authorising officers are failing to provide specific direction for the conduct of surveillance operations.”

And it found one authorising officer, in Children’s Services, ‘had never received any training and was unaware of the special provisions relating to confidential information’.

The inspector, from the Office of Surveillance Commissioners, said they were told this was the only occasion this had occurred, because the officer had not been able to attend training.

The council’s rules were changed as a result of the 2008 inspection – obtained by The Silhillian under the Freedom of Information Act – to state that officers are only accredited after receiving ‘sufficient training’.

Directed surveillance is ‘likely to obtain private information about an individual (whether or not that person is specifically targeted for purposes of an investigation)’ official guidance states.

The council’s communications offices refused to state what had been done to address the issues when contacted by The Silhillian. It said the request must be asked through the Freedom of Information Act process, which can take a maximum 20 days.

The name of the inspector was not disclosed, the council said, on request of the OSC and because doing so would breach the Data Protection Act.

Overall, the inspector said the council has a ‘sound structure for dealing with RIPA in a number of key areas and your authorising officers and investigators have a good general knowledge of the legislation’. The changes were ‘modest’ it said.

Read the full report here.

What do you think? Leave your comments below. No registration required.

Click here to get stories by email.

Council spied on suspected dog foulers

A COUNCIL watched residents suspected of dog fouling using controversial “spying” powers.

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act five times to watch dog owners in 2003.

The authority also probed concerns including fly tipping, anti-social behaviour, noise, scam traders and benefit fraud. All were surveillance in public.

But of 107 probes carried out since September 2006 just seven prosecutions were successful with “data communication information” also needed. Five more are ongoing.

The information is given by the council in a full record of probes using the RIPA and obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Read them here and here.

Revelations about councils’ use of the RIPA act led the Government to announce a review in April.

Then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said at its launch: “I don't want to see these powers being used to target people for putting their bins out on the wrong day or for dog fouling offences.”

She said: “Our country has a proud tradition of individual freedom.

“This involves freedom from unjustified interference by the state. But it also includes freedom from interference by those who would do us harm.

“The government is responsible for protecting both types of freedom.”

Authorities must therefore “have the powers they need” but these must not be used “inappropriately or excessively” she said.

“The government has absolutely no interest in spying on law-abiding people going about their everyday lives.”

Councillors could be given powers to sign off any probes, she said. At present, senior managers approve investigations.

The council said there were 208 applications made to use the act by staff, though 154 were passed.

A statement from the council said: “In all cases, the request was made to help assist a criminal investigation where it was considered that the data communications information was both proportionate and necessary within the scope of the investigation.”

It added: “Responses came back with information varying in its usefulness.

“For example, some requests came back with details identifying persons responsible for the matters under investigation, some came back with details of the accounts having been set up with false identities, and some came back with no relevant information held.”

Powers given to councils under the act include intercepting phone calls, emails and letters, covert surveillance and use of informants and undercover sources.

The authority blanked out names of council officers involved as it said this breached the Data Protection Act.

It also refused to reveal how investigations are carried out as it would be “likely to prejudice the council's ability to fulfil the law enforcement purposes”.

The information was posted on website What Do They Know? The site collects FOI requests posted by members of the public.