"Interception of communications
Authorisation
9. The Bingham Centre does not doubt the diligence and conscientiousness of the Secretaries of State in issuing interception warrants nor does it have cause to dispute the candour and integrity and of those applying for such warrants.9 We nonetheless consider that it is constitutionally inappropriate for the Secretary of State to have the final say in issuing interception warrants. In their evidence before the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary both stressed the need for democratic accountability in issuing interception warrants, so that government ministers remained answerable for the warrants they issued and could be removed by way of the ballot box if necessary.10 Yet it is very difficult to see how this could ever be the case. For a start, s17 RIPA prohibits any evidence being adduced in any court or tribunal that would even "tend ... to suggest" that an interception warrant has been made.11 Secondly, s19 RIPA provides that it is a criminal offence for any person "holding office under the Crown", any member of staff of an intercepting agency or communications service provider, among others, to disclose the existence of an interception warrant unless authorised to do so for certain limited purposes, none of which appear to entail disclosure to Parliament or the public at large.12 "
Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law (pg 83)
-
No comments:
Post a Comment