UK: Security services reports
01 May 1995
The number of warrants issued in England and Wales for telephone-tapping and mail-opening is slightly down at 947 in 1994 compared with 998 in 1993 - making it the second highest peacetime figure since the 1948 dock strike (973 warrants). These figures in the latest annual report from Lord Nolan - who took over from Sir Thomas Bingham in April 1994 - however only give part of the picture.
Under Section 2 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985 warrants to intercept communications are meant to be applied for by the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS), Customs and Excise, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the Security Service (MI5), the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) and Scottish police forces. However, the number of warrants issued by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (RUC and MI5) and the Foreign Secretary (MI6 and GCHQ) are not published.
The Tribunal set up to hear complaints received 37 new applications and yet again none were upheld - none have been upheld since the Tribunal was set up under the 1985 Act.
Total figures for warrants issued, England and Wales 1989-1994:
1989 458
1990 515
1991 732
1992 874
1993 998
1994 947
Total figures for Scotland 1989-1994:
1989 64
1990 66
1991 82
1992 92
1993 122
1994 100
This is the second highest figure for Scotland since they were first published in 1967.
The annual report from Lord Justice Stuart-Smith on the Security Service (MI5) is just two pages long and one of these is devoted to raising the issue of the police use of "bugs" in private homes - a practice not covered by the Interception of Communications Act. His concern arose out of a case where the police "bugged" a private house and the only evidence in court against a defendant - on trial for drug dealing - was "the product of the device". The defendant was convicted and lost an appeal even though the prosecution accepted "the installation of the device was a trespass". The Court of Appeal in rejecting his application drew attention to the fact that there is no statutory provision governing "the use by the police of secret listening device on private property". Lord Justice Stuart-Smith expresses his support for the need to introduce a law to govern the police use of "bugging" devices. However, what is not at all clear is why Lord Justice Stuart-Smith devotes half his report to this question; his job is to report on MI5, it is Lord Nolan (above) who is the Commissioner responsible for dealing with interceptions - so is this because the case involved MI5 working with the police?
Unaccountable "metering"
If "bugging" is unregulated and ought to be monitored then the revelation by the Scotsman newspaper of unregulated "metering" being passed over to the police raises an even larger issue.
The paper says that the number of requests for lists of metered calls from the eight Scottish police forces has risen from 207 in 1992, 480 in 1993, and 937 in 1994. Metering allows the police and MI5 to get precise details of which numbers have been called, their duration, time of day and date from any phone without having to get authorisation from a judge or government Minister. British Telecom and the two largest mobile phone companies - Vodaphone and Cellnet - confirmed they provided information on request.
In November 1992 the Secretary of State for Scotland set out the guidelines governing police and MI5 requests. These state that:
"Applications for telephone metering or itemised billing should only be made in relation to the investigation of very serious crime; where no other method of investigation can be utilised; and where the facility is likely to provide essential information regarding the investigation".
A Scottish Office spokesperson said that the Secretary of State felt the guidelines were satisfactory as: "Metering does not invol