Agenda item

To endorse the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 Procedural Guide and to approve the Social Media Policy. 

26.1           Attention was drawn to the Solicitor’s report, circulated at Pages No. 220-248, which attached the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) Procedural Guide and the Social Media Policy.  It was noted that there was an error in the recommendation and that Members were asked to consider the documents and recommend them to the Executive Committee for approval.

26.2           In accordance with the guidance issued by the Home Office, it was recommended that Councillors were involved in the annual review of RIPA policies and the report before Members was the annual report for 2016.  Use of the Act had changed significantly since it had been introduced and it was now quite unusual for the RIPA procedure to be initiated; the Council had not had any RIPA authorisations for the past five or six years but it needed to have a Policy in place in the event that it was required.  One of the main points was that, in order to carry out covert, or ‘intrusive’, surveillance, it was necessary to go to a Magistrates Court to obtain authorisation, it could not be done via an Officer.  This was much stricter than it had been previously to ensure there was no abuse of the process.  Officers had been looking at using RIPA for fly-tipping but they would have to be prepared to go to court for authority to carry out any covert surveillance.  The current RIPA procedure had last been revised in December 2014 and no changes were proposed, however, the Office of Surveillance Commissioners (OSC) had strongly recommended that a Social Media Policy be introduced due to the increasing internet traffic and the use of social networking sites by traders, companies and individuals that may result in criminal activity.  A policy had been drafted and was attached at Appendix 2 to the report.  The Legal Adviser explained that, whilst the Council had a corporate Facebook account which was open and transparent, it may be possible to carry out covert surveillance by setting up another account and  posing as someone else in order to obtain information from people who may be acting criminally, for instance, someone posting information about fly-tipping.  This was a complex process and it was important that there was a policy in place to cover such investigations.

26.3           A Member indicated that people increasingly shared information online and he felt that social media was a good way to catch out criminals.  He questioned whether the Council would be able to work with the Police as they were often able to act more quickly than the local authority.  The Borough Solicitor explained that this would depend on the circumstances; the Police may not want to be involved if the Council had powers to act.  She reiterated that the policy only applied to activities which the Council could potentially prosecute for, not general criminal activity; if anything of that nature was spotted on social media then it would be referred to the Police.  A Member raised concern that information posted on social media was not always accurate and he questioned how a decision would be made as to whether an investigation was warranted.  The Legal Adviser indicated that accusations would be followed-up by setting up an account, once authorisation had been obtained, in order to connect with an individual and gather evidence.  Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) had to be very carefully managed and someone would be appointed to do that.  Members were advised that it would need to be a very serious matter for the Council to take these steps and such action would not be taken lightly.

26.4           It was

RESOLVED          That it be RECOMMENDED TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE that:

i)   the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) Procedural Guide be ENDORSED as set out at Appendix 1 to the report; and

ii)  the Social Media Policy be APPROVED as set out at Appendix 2 to the report.