Search Results

This chapter focuses on directed surveillance, which can be conducted if and only if necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder. It introduces the two-part hierarchy of surveillance prescribed by law: directed and intrusive. It also describes empowered public authorities that utilize intrusive surveillance, which are defined by reference to senior authorizing officers within each organization that can grant an intrusive surveillance authority. The chapter outlines organizations that may conduct intrusive surveillance and those empowered to conduct directed surveillance. It cites the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Order 2010 that requires surveillance to be regarded, treated, and accordingly authorized as intrusive surveillance.

This chapter introduces the sort of dialogue and its associated lexicon that is necessary to use when debating and developing practitioner guidance on the ethics of covert investigation. It describes a future developed guidance that will be derived from a professional and philosophical narrative that explains the ‘what for’, the ‘when’, and the ‘why’ of covert investigation. It also serves to assist investigators and authorizing officers in structuring their considerations and measuring their actions. The chapter stresses how covert investigation operates in an arena of permanent tension between preserving respect for individual human dignity and maximizing utility so long as any good generated outweighs any harm caused. It covers human dignity, which is distinguished in international law and some non-UK jurisdictions.

This chapter talks about covert investigation subject to RIPA2000, IPA2016, and PA97, which must be authorized before the use of covert methods commences. It considers the role of the authorizing officer as the most important role within the overall management and governance of lawful covert investigation. It also describes the authorizing officer, who assesses and documents the statutory determinations of proportionality and necessity. The chapter covers governance architecture, which is multi-faceted, has oversight in the form of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, and is an independent Investigatory Powers Tribunal adjudicating allegations of misuse. It highlights the general and generic issues concerning authorization as a mechanism.

This chapter discusses the authorizing officers' and custody officers' duties and powers to take fingerprints and samples from detainees. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, police may take photographs, fingerprints, or footwear samples for identification purposes. Code D of the Codes of Practice presents the procedures relating to the identification of suspects. Moreover, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 created new restrictions concerning the destruction, retention, and use of biometric data gathered during police investigations. The chapter explains the role of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights in guiding the police's duty to rationalize their actions and show that it was necessary, proportional, and legal to obtain an intimate sample.