Damian Hill and Metropolitan Police Service & Independent Office For Police Conduct [2022] UKIP Trib 6 (30 December 2022)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

Neutral Citation Number: [2022] UKIP Trib 6
Case No: IPT/20/62/H
Date: 30 December 2022

LORD JUSTICE EDIS
PROFESSOR GRAHAM ZELLICK CBE KC
and
MR DESMOND BROWNE CBE KC

Nicholas Yeo and Ryan Dowding (instructed by Reynolds Dawson) for the Claimant

Neil Sheldon KC and Ruby Shrimpton (instructed by Metropolitan Police Service) for the First Respondent

Andrew Bird KC (instructed by Independent Office for Police Conduct) for the Second Respondent
Julian Milford KC (instructed by Home office) for the Interested Party
Rosemary Davidson as Counsel to the Tribunal

1. This is the Judgment of the Tribunal. The complainant/claimant is not anonymised and is not subject to any criminal or disciplinary proceedings arising out of the matters we will set out. We have not named other individual police officers at all where there may be some proceedings arising of these matters and their conduct is not relevant to the issues we have to decide. This judgment follows a public hearing without reporting restrictions and no party sought any.

2. This is a complaint and a human rights claim brought by Detective Sergeant Damian Hill against the Metropolitan Police Service ("MPS") and the Independent Office for Police Conduct ("IOPC"). It relates to two episodes in respect of which the Tribunal has, or may have, jurisdiction. Those episodes occurred within a series of events about which Sergeant Hill also complains, but much of that is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It would be wrong for the Tribunal to express any view about matters which are not within its jurisdiction as other proceedings in other courts may be brought in order to address those complaints. We intend to decide only those matters which we have to decide in order to deal with the claims within our jurisdiction. Sergeant Hill complains that his data was unlawfully obtained by the MPS and IOPC in two ways: first they obtained communications data relating to his use of a mobile phone ("the communications data claim"), and secondly, they subsequently downloaded its content purportedly exercising powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) ("the phone download claim"). He alleges that by doing so those bodies breached his right under Article 8 of the ECHR to a private life. For the purposes of the procedure of the Tribunal, this results in both a claim and a complaint in respect of these two acts, using the terminology of section 65(2) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). In substance, the complaint and the human rights proceedings raise the same issue. If the complaint succeeds in demonstrating unlawfulness in the conduct (which interfered with Sergeant Hill's Article 8 rights) then it will necessarily follow that the interference was not "in accordance with law" and his human rights claim will succeed to the same extent. That is not in dispute. What is in issue is the extent of the unlawful conduct and the extent of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in respect of the downloading of the phone.

3. The facts are set out in a Crown Court judgment which is Annex A and a chronology prepared by the IOPC for the Tribunal which is Annex B. It is necessary briefly to summarise the context in order to assist comprehension. In doing so, we refer in passing to matters which are not within our jurisdiction but are not intending to make any findings about such things. An incident took place on 15 May 2018 when a drug dealer called Dean Francis was arrested by an Operation Trident surveillance team of the Metropolitan Police. In the course of his arrest, or immediately before it, he was injured when one of the surveillance vehicles came into contact with him, knocking him over some railings and down into the area between the street and a house. He subsequently pleaded guilty to supplying class A drugs and received a substantial prison sentence. Sergeant Hill and Detective Constable X were involved in the operation, but neither was the driver of the vehicle which collided with Mr. Francis. Detective Constable X was the driver of another vehicle and had fitted his own dashcam camera which recorded footage of the collision. That footage showed that at the point when he was knocked over the railings Mr. Francis was carrying a bag, which later turned out to contain 500g of cocaine. He was later to say that the bag which was found beside him after his fall had been put there by someone else, and that it was a coincidence that he landed close to it. The film showed that this account was false. After his arrest, Sergeant Hill became the officer in charge of the investigation into him. The incident was referred to the IOPC as a death or serious injury matter in accordance with Part 2 of and Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. The IOPC decided to refer the investigation into the incident back to the MPS for a local investigation by the Department of Professional Standards ("DPS"). A police officer from traffic was involved and took possession of Officer B's film. This was then held by the MPS DPS.
On 7 June 2018 Sergeant Hill viewed that footage which was made available to him by the DPS. He recorded the screen on his personal mobile phone as a video clip. He later explained that he did this because it was easier to view the footage in that way for his purposes as officer in charge of the investigation into Mr. Francis than it was on the standalone computer in which it was held, because the phone had different software. He later sent his video of the footage by WhatsApp to Officer B, at his request, in circumstances described in the chronology entry for that day at Annex B. The IOPC then redetermined its original decision on 6 July 2018 and established its own independent enquiry, called Operation Irwin, into the circumstances in which Mr. Francis had been injured. That resulted in the seizure of phones from three officers on 13 September 2018. These were (1) the driver of the vehicle which collided with Mr. Francis, Officer C, (2) Officer B, and (3) another officer, not Sergeant Hill. Analysis of these phones showed the existence of WhatsApp groups in which officers of the MPS (including Sergeant Hill) were communicating with each other about police business. This practice has since become notorious, but was already a matter of concern and the MPS referred these three officers for investigation by the IOPC for possible breaches of the criminal law relating to data protection. An IOPC operation was set up, called Operation Trent, to investigate these referrals. There was no referral at this time in relation to Sergeant Hill. Notwithstanding this, the IOPC later decided to investigate him, and to seize his phone, which they did on 19 June 2019. That seizure, the Crown Court has decided, was unlawful, see the judgment at Annex A. It was done by an IOPC investigator who wrongly believed that he had the powers of seizure of a constable under PACE. In the absence of a referral by the MPS to the IOPC in respect of Sergeant Hill under the Police Reform Act 2002 this was not so. Before the seizure, and in preparation for it, the IOPC obtained communications data from Sergeant Hill's service provider as described below. Afterwards, the content of the phone was extracted by the MPS acting on behalf of the IOPC. That data was never examined and has now been destroyed. It will be apparent that there may be civil proceedings arising from the unlawful seizure of the phone, and perhaps criminal or disciplinary proceedings arising from various aspects of this sequence of events. We are concerned only with the communications data claim and, if we have jurisdiction, the phone download claim.

a. The communications data claim: On 29 March 2019, an application under section 22 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA)1 was approved by the IOPC's `designated person', Mike Benbow, who stated:

"I have considered the crimes under investigation of misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice. These are serious offences and as such the public expect that where a person employed by the state is suspected of such offences every legal method should be used to seek to prove or disprove the allegations. I have considered the actions proposed and consider them necessary to assist in this investigation. I consider them proportionate to the crimes under investigation…".

A notice was issued requiring Hutchinson 3G to produce communications data for the period 14 May 2018 to 7 July 2018, and for 26 March 2019 for a mobile
—————————-

1 At the material time section 22 of RIPA was still in force, in a heavily amended version. It is only necessary to analyse the provision and its legislative history to a very limited extent.

number used at all times by Sergeant Hill as his personal mobile phone. The IOPC now concedes that this period was too long, and that some of the data was therefore unlawfully obtained. Sergeant Hill's case is that the application should not have been made or approved, and that the obtaining of all the data was unlawful. As will appear, we agree. There is no doubt that this complaint is within our jurisdiction.

b. The handset download claim: On 19 June 2019, Sergeant Hill was required to attend a meeting with the IOPC. The IOPC Policy Decision 90 records the IOPC's belief that the investigating officers who attended the meeting had the powers of a constable pursuant to section 13 of and paragraph 19(4) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. It is now agreed that they did not, because there had been no referral by the MPS to the IOPC in respect of Sergeant Hill, as is required by that Act before the powers it confers become exercisable by the IOPC. It is common ground that: (a) the Complainant was informed that he would be arrested if he did not hand the device over; and (b) the mobile telephone was seized by Kieran Casserly, an IPCO officer, purporting to exercise the powers of a constable pursuant to section 19 of PACE. That seizure was unlawful, it is agreed, because he did not have the powers which he purported to exercise. The complaint about seizure is not within our jurisdiction. However, a series of events unfolded as follows:-

The decryption of the PIN on the Complainant's device and the initial download of data

i. Jack Lee, another IOPC Officer, states that, between 19 June 2019 and December 2019, "attempts were made to access [Sergeant Hill's] mobile phone after he refused to provide the PIN".

ii. On 20 September 2019, Mr. Lee completed a `National Digital Exploitation Unit Tasking Form' stating that Sergeant Hill was being investigated in relation to data protection offences and requesting that the mobile telephone be accessed to download the data. The form stated that the device had been seized pursuant to section 19 of PACE and noted that, as the Complainant had refused to provide his PIN, "the next course of action is to unlock it through brute force".

iii. On 8 October 2019, an MPS officer, DC James Lynch, took possession of Sergeant Hill's mobile phone, now known as KCA/3, and used digital media exploitation software to attempt to discover the PIN code to the device. The attempt was unsuccessful but he repeated the exercise on 2 December 2019 and discovered the PIN code which he used to unlock the device. DC Lynch "obtained a full read of the device" and copied it to an encrypted USB drive (KCA/3/JWL/1). DC Lynch has confirmed that he did not forensically process or view the data.

iv. In December 2019, Jack Lee made a submission to the MPS Professional Standards High Tech Crime Unit requesting assistance with the examination of KCA/3 and KCA/3/JWL/1.

v. Mr. Lee also completed a `Digital Examination Request'. The Digital Examination Request included the assertion "this is a criminal investigation and, as such, the IOPC has the legal authority to access all information on the mobile phone". The request included date range parameters (15 May 2018 to 19 June 2019) "to ensure the download is proportionate".

vi. The Digital Examination Request form contained a box headed `is this action likely to result in the acquisition of confidential material or personal data?' and Mr. Lee ticked the boxes for: (a) matters subject to legal privilege; (b) confidential personal information; and (c) personal data. In a box headed `Exhibits seized under the following power' Mr. Lee ticked "s19. PACE 1984 exercisable by a constable lawfully on premises".

vii. On 30 December 2019 David Balcombe, an MPS Digital Forensic Examiner, conducted a forensic examination of KCA/3 and KCA/3/JWL/1 which resulted in multiple copies of the content of Sergeant Hill's phone. On 22 January 2020, the original exhibits and examination reports in relation to the Complainant's device were returned to the IOPC but the MPS retained a copy of the forensic extraction in case further work should be required. Mr. Lee received the product of the download on 22 January 2020 but states that he did not review any of the material received.

vii. Soon afterwards an application was issued by Sergeant Hill to the Crown Court under section 59 of PACE. This succeeded before His Honour Judge Lickley KC in a reserved ruling in which he was strongly critical of the IOPC, having heard evidence on disputed matters. He made findings of fact in relation to matters within his jurisdiction. So far as material, we accept his findings about the matters which were necessary for his decision, which concerned the seizure and retention of the mobile phone and not the obtaining of communications data which was a preparatory step to that seizure. At paragraph 69 he made a finding about the RIPA application for communications data nonetheless, to which we will return. That judgment is annexed to this ruling as Annex A, and we will not repeat its content here. We have not heard evidence, and no party has suggested that his main findings were wrong, except in one respect. Further evidence before the Tribunal shows that there is an error in paragraph 31 of that judgment which says that on 3 July 2019 Mr. Lee served a section 49 RIPA 2000 notice on DS Hill requiring disclosure of the PIN for his phone. In fact, there never was a section 49 notice. The 3 July 2019 document was a letter which asked for voluntary disclosure of the PIN and added:-
"Please be aware that if you do not disclose the relevant information to access your phone, I may seek a disclosure notice under s.49 of the Regulation of Investigator [sic] Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) requiring the material in question to be made intelligible and accessible to me. As I am sure you are aware, failure to comply with a disclosure notice to provide the material in an intelligible form by supply keys (passwords, PINs etc) is a chargeable offence."

ix. In fact, the IOPC was advised that other methods should be tried before any section 49 notice was issued and as we have said those other methods succeeded. No such notice was ever given, nor could one ever have been lawfully issued because section 49 only allows a notice to be given where the phone has been lawfully seized. Accordingly the jurisdiction in section 65(8)(e) of RIPA is not engaged.

5. Whether the handset download claim is within our jurisdiction depends on whether the handset was part of a telecommunications system. If so, access to it was governed by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 ("the IPA 2016") and this Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the claim. Sergeant Hill contends that his handset was part of the public telecommunications system which had supplied his SIM card to enable him to connect to its network. The MPS and IOPC submit that it was not. The Home Office has filed submissions supporting Mr. Hill's position and we have received helpful submissions from Counsel to the Tribunal (CTT) which tend to the same conclusion. It is common ground that the interference with the handset by the MPS was unlawful. It was, however, done in good faith by the MPS at the behest of the IOPC which wrongly assured MPS that it had lawful authority under section 19 of PACE to request its assistance. The act of downloading the content of the phone was done by staff who were entitled to rely on this assurance and are without fault. The MPS corporately will have known that it had not referred Sergeant Hill for investigation but it is not clear from the evidence that anyone with that knowledge was aware of the request to extract data from his phone. It is thus not established that any individual fault lies with the MPS for this extraction. The issues for us on this claim are:-

6. Sergeant Hill makes a number of complaints about the MPS and the IOPC which are not within our jurisdiction. An example is this:-

"On the 9 July 2019 Commander Paul Brogden of the MPS (as a result of the IOPC feedback from the 19 June 2019) placed me on restrictions that I assert breached my Article 8 Human Rights."

7. We do not intend to list all the complaints which are out of scope. We have identified those which are in scope, and will deal only with them and the facts necessary to decide both the extent of liability and remedy.

8. The phone download claim is based on the submission that the extraction of data from the mobile phone required a warrant or other lawful authority because it was interception as defined in IPA 2016. The result of that, if made out, would be that the conduct complained of took place within challengeable circumstances (within the meaning of section 65(7) of RIPA (see section 65(8)(a)), and the Tribunal is the appropriate forum for this complaint (see section 65(4) of RIPA). The Tribunal is the only appropriate tribunal for the purposes of section 7 of the HRA 1998 (section 65(2)(a), section 65(3)(d) and section 65(5)(a) and (czd)) in respect of the ensuing human rights claim.

9. Much of the factual background is set out in Judge Lickley KC's judgment at Annex A. The chronology to which he refers is not attached to this judgment, but it is incorporated in the chronology which is Annex B. We can therefore extract in summary the facts most material to the grant of the authorisation for the communications data. The purpose of the application was to check that the handset in use in May 2018 was still in use in March 2019. This was achieved by securing communications data which showed the IMEI number of the handset in use at the time of communications at those times. The IMEI number could not be obtained separately, and thus all the communications data was secured from the service provider. The IOPC said (and there is no reason to doubt this) that the data was actually used only for the purpose of confirming that the IMEI number (and thus the handset in use) had remained the same.

10. The phone was to be recovered and examined after this check had been carried out to ensure it was the right phone. This would govern the way in which it was done and, in some ways, reduce intrusion. To secure a mobile phone handset which was still in use would often only require a request to or seizure from the individual who habitually carries it. Recovery of an old handset might require a search of the home of the person, or might be judged so speculative that it would not be attempted.

11. The relevant facts for this part of the claim are set out in the Annex B chronology and begin with the meeting on 22 March 2019. The IOPC decided that it would investigate Sergeant Hill by seizing his phone because it concluded that he had sent the video footage to Officer B "for no apparent policing purpose". This seizure was not then open to it in law because of the lack of a referral of Sergeant Hill by the MPS for the reasons set out by Judge Lickley KC. Kieran Casserley was tasked with making the preparatory application for communications data. The draft he produced went through various hands before being approved by Mr. Benbow in the terms set out at [4(a)] above. No severity assessment had been carried out by the IOPC by that stage of the allegations against Sergeant Hill. This is part of the normal process following a referral, but had not taken place in this case because, no doubt, there had been no referral. Therefore, an intrusive investigative step was authorised by the IOPC designated person before the strength and gravity of the complaint had been assessed. Judge Lickley's comments on this were very well founded and accurate. It was alarmingly cavalier.

12. The result of this failure was that the application for communications data under section 22 of RIPA was inadequate. The information which informed the severity assessment carried out on 17 May 2019 by Mr. Lee was all available to the IOPC at the time when the section 22 application was drafted and authorised. Mr. Lee later decided that the investigation should only relate to potential data protection offences and not to the more serious offences of perverting the course of justice or misconduct in public office. The decision was recorded in `Policy Decision 78' in the following terms:

"There were initially concerns regarding [Sergeant Hill's] prior involvement in the referral process and his status within Op Irwin. However, the evidence currently available to the IOPC does not suggest the sending of the dashcam footage is related to any wider attempt by [Sergeant Hill] to undermine a local investigation. At the point by which [Sergeant Hill] sends the dashcam footage to Officer B, officers had already provided their statements. Additionally, the evidence shows [Sergeant Hill] only sending the footage to Officer B, rather than all the officers involved in the incident - as such it does not appear to be a deliberate attempt by [Sergeant Hill] to provide information to the officers regarding the investigation. Although [Sergeant Hill] would be aware at the time when he sent the footage that there was an active investigation/potential for an IOPC independent investigation, the threshold for [Perverting the Course of Justice] is not met by this act alone"

13. The material which led Mr. Lee to conclude that Sergeant Hill should not be investigated for the offences which had been the basis of the authorisation of the communications data request was not disclosed to Mr. Benbow. He was not told that the video footage was only sent to one officer, who was the officer who had taken it on his own device. That officer was not responsible for driving his car into the person who was injured. He was not told that all relevant officers had made their statements before the video footage was disclosed to Officer B.

14. Moreover, Mr. Benbow's authorisation is specifically tailored to the seriousness of the offences under investigation. If he had been told that the evidence was not such as to warrant investigation for those offences the outcome would have been different. If he had been told that it would be unlawful for the IOPC to investigate them using PACE powers because there had been no MPS referral of Sergeant Hill's case, this also would have led him to refuse to authorise the application. Indeed, if the decision makers present at the meeting on the 22 March had properly informed themselves about the case before deciding to apply for communications data, the application would not, or at least should not, have been made. The IOPC submits that this application was not rendered unlawful by the absence of a referral because no police powers were involved in its being made. This misses the point that the IOPC is a creature of statute and investigates matters within the framework of the Police Reform Act 2002. It is not necessary to decide whether such an application must always be unlawful if there is no properly constituted investigation in being at the time when it is made. We do however find it hard to envisage any circumstances where a lawful application could be made outside a lawfully constituted investigation. Certainly, there is nothing in the facts of this case which would justify such conduct. Our decision on this issue is based on the failures in the application to disclose relevant material to the designated person, as we shall explain. He was not told that the proposed seizure of the phone, to which the application he authorised was merely ancillary, was going to be unlawful.

15. Before it could be authorised, the designated person had to decide that the obtaining of the communications data was necessary for the investigation of serious crime. The part of the application dealing with necessity said only this:-

"The phones of three officers were seized in a related investigation. These phones were forensically downloaded and the WhatsApp messages extracted. A contact was identified as Damian Hill from the context of messages, this contact was saved as “Damo” in the address book of all phones, with the phone number “447718912791”. Communications sent from this number on 7 July 2018 were identified. The communications on this date included a video, created by filming a screen of a Metropolitan Police Service computer which was playing a video of a police incident where a male was hit by a covert police vehicle. This incident took place on 15 May 2018.

"This video was sent, by the above phone number, using WhatsApp to the personal phone of [Officer B], who was involved in that incident, and is under criminal investigation by the IOPC as a result of that incident and a statement he produced about it. DI Hill was aware of the IOPC investigation at the time that he sent the video. The source of this video is currently unknown, it may have been recorded on DI Hill’s phone or sent to him by someone else. The video was recorded between 15 May 2018, and 7 July 2018 but the specific date is unknown.

"The offences being considered are potentially attempting to pervert the course of justice and/or that the officer may have misconducted himself in a public office by sharing footage of an incident for which an officer was under investigation with that officer. The IOPC is planning to seize the phone used to send the video. By accessing call data which includes the IMEI number associated with the phone number, we will be able to establish what handset DI Hill was using between the 14 May and 7 July 2018 and to check if DI Hill is still using the same handset. This will allow us to plan accordingly for that seizure."

16. This application did not, therefore, disclose the following pieces of information all of which were within the knowledge of the IOPC, or easily capable of being discovered by them:-

a. That Sergeant Hill was the officer in charge of the investigation into the conduct of the drug dealer who had been injured. This investigation resulted in a conviction for dealing in class A drugs. The footage was relevant to his investigation because it showed that the dealer was holding the bag before he was knocked into the area of a house. His claim that he landed near the bag which had got there by some other means was, therefore, false. Sergeant Hill did recover some stills which were part of the file he prepared for the CPS which showed this. He did have a policing purpose for having and processing the footage, although the policing purpose of transmitting it to Officer B is far less obvious.

b. That Sergeant Hill was not aware of the IOPC investigation when he made and transmitted the footage on 7 June 2018. The IOPC did not decide to conduct its own independent investigation until 6 July 2018, see chronology at Annex B.

c. The date inserted into the application as the date when the footage was transmitted, 7 July 2018, was false. It suggested that Sergeant Hill could have been aware of the IOPC investigation when he made and transmitted the footage. If the true date of 7 June 2018 had been inserted this claim would have been seen to be untrue by anyone who knew the actual chronology. Given the number of hands through which this document went in draft over the course of a week, see chronology, this is a very surprising error. The IOPC accepts that it renders the obtaining of communications data between 7 June and 7 July disproportionate and unlawful. However, the falsification of a key factual claim (that Sergeant Hill knew of the IOPC investigation when he transmitted the footage) has consequences beyond that. Judge Lickley KC took a charitable view of the "error". He said:-

"69. The RIPA application was clumsy and not thought through. I am not satisfied it was drafted to mislead. It does however show laxness, a lack of attention to detail and a failure to apply the necessary care needed when drafting such a document."

As we say at 4(b)(viii) above, this finding was not essential to his decision and as we have just said, it could be regarded as charitable. When associated with another convenient dating "error" on what Judge Lickley called "the criminal letter", a pattern emerges. In that case a completely false date was inserted which would suggest that a referral had been made on a particular date when it had not been made at all at any time prior to the 19 June 2019 when Sergeant Hill's phone was unlawfully seized. We cannot find that these were innocent errors, but neither do we find that there was deliberate dishonesty. We have not heard the witnesses and are not in a position to make findings against them fairly. We therefore leave open the question of whether the fault in relation to these two documents was careless or dishonest. That this level of carelessness, if that is what it was, amounts to serious fault, at least for our purposes, is beyond doubt. This is relevant, for our purposes, only to remedy.

d. At the date of transmission to Officer B, 7 June 2018, that officer was not under criminal investigation by the IOPC "as a result of that incident and a statement he produced about it", and Sergeant Hill was not aware that he was. In fact, Officer B was the driver of a vehicle which was not the one which caused injury to the drug dealer. As at 7 June, the IOPC had decided that the investigation into the incident should be conducted by the DPS of the MPS. It was not until after the IOPC independent investigation was established on 6 July 2018 and had been running for some time that it was decided that there was an indication that three officers (including Officer B) may have colluded about their statements, see the statement of Steven Foxley dated 26 January 2021. Notices were not served on the three officers under the Regulations until 13 September 2018.

e. By the time of the transmission to Officer B, not only he but other relevant officers had made their witness statements.

f. The transmission was made only to Officer B, who was the officer who had caused it to be created, and not to any other officer. In particular, it was not transmitted to the occupants of the vehicle which had caused the injury.

g. The IOPC had not received a referral in respect of Sergeant Hill from the MPS and had not conducted a severity assessment in respect of his alleged conduct. It had no statutory basis for its investigation. Whether or not that meant that the whole conduct of the IOPC at that point was unlawful is not something we have to decide, because the position should have been made clear to the designated person, Mr. Benbow, and was not.

17. In News Group Newspapers Limited v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (IPT/14/176/H) the Tribunal considered the operation of section 22 of RIPA and held:

(a) an applicant for authorisation under RIPA has a duty to include in the application the necessary material to enable the authorising officer to be satisfied that the statutory conditions are met, and must also make full and accurate disclosure, including disclosure of anything that might militate against the grant of an authorisation (para. 81, applying Chatwani IPT/15/84/88/CH at para. (15);
(b) the lawfulness of the authorisation(s) to obtain communications data must be judged on the basis of the information known to the investigation team at the time when the authorisations were issued (para. 34);
(c) the belief of the designated person as to necessity and proportionality under section 21(1) and (5) must be an honest and reasonable belief (paras. 74 and 89); and
(d) whether or not Convention rights have been breached is an objective question which does not depend on the procedural propriety of the decision-making process or the adequacy of the reasoning of the relevant designated person (para. 65, applying Belfast City Council v Miss Behavin' Limited [2007] 1 WLR 1420).

18. The IOPC submissions refer to the fact that Sergeant Hill was under investigation in relation to an offence under section 170 of the Data Protection Act 2018 following the severity assessment, and that this could have been a proper basis for the section 22 application. While it might have been possible to make the application on the basis of this offence pursuant to the serious crime definition in section 25 of RIPA (because it is an offence which involves, as an integral part of it, the sending of a communication, and perhaps also a breach of a person's privacy) both the necessity and proportionality requirements would have been much more finely balanced given that: (a) the IOPC already had the evidence that Sergeant Hill had sent the footage via Whatsapp and it was not necessary to prove that it was he who filmed it in order to make out an offence under section 170; and (b) an offence under section 170 carries only a non-custodial penalty. Sergeant Hill sets out in his witness statement various other difficulties in proving the data protection offence. We do not need to decide whether he is right about that although if the application had been made on this basis, proper disclosure of the strength of the case in relation to this offence would have been required. The seriousness of the offences which were cited in the section 22 application was a material factor in the granting of the authorisation and the designated person noted the public interest in ensuring that, where a person employed by the state is suspected of such offences, "every legal method should be used to seek to prove or disprove the allegations". We are bound by the decision of the Divisional Court in the search warrant case of R (Mills) v. Sussex Police [2014] EWHC 2523 (Admin) in which Elias LJ analysed the authorities and concluded at [49]:-

"In my judgment, the court should state that the warrant has been unlawfully obtained on the basis that the judge might well have refused to issue it had there been full and proper disclosure."

19. In fact, this passage led the court not only to conclude that the warrant had been unlawfully obtained but also that the right remedy was to quash it.

20. Mr. Benbow is no longer employed by the IOPC and has not given evidence or, so far as we can see, contributed to any document which is before us except the authorisation. We do not therefore know what difference it would have made to him if he had known the things listed at paragraph [17] above. The test, however, is an objective one. We are able to draw our own conclusions about what a decision maker acting reasonably would have done if given all the missing information identified above. We have concluded that any reasonable decision maker given all the information which he should have had would probably have decided to refuse to authorise the section 22 request. It follows that we must conclude that the authorisation might well have been refused if there had been proper disclosure.

21. Accordingly, the communications data claim succeeds against the IOPC. We will deal with remedies in the last section of this ruling.

22. The issue for this Tribunal is whether it has jurisdiction in respect of the downloading of Sergeant Hill's phone. It is accepted that this was an unlawful act, but the IOPC and MPS submit that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to grant a remedy and Sergeant Hill must seek redress through the civil courts. This question has proved extremely difficult. The Tribunal certainly has jurisdiction (in summary of very complex statutory provisions) if the download required a warrant under Part 5 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. This depends on whether the download was an "interception" as defined by section 4 of IPA 2016. The download included communications stored on the handset before or after transmission and would amount to an "interception" if the communications stored on the handset were "stored in or by the system" at the time of extraction. This is the effect of s.4(4)(b) of IPA 2016. We did not hear argument based on what the words "or by" might add to the word "in" in that statutory phrase and express no view on that question. The issue we were asked to determine was whether, at the time of the download (which was an interference with the system or "wireless telegraphy apparatus used for making transmissions to or from apparatus that is part of the system", see section 4(3)) the communications were "stored in or by the system" or not.

23. It is not satisfactory that an issue with potentially far reaching implications falls to be decided when there is no substantive dispute. The submissions we received at and before the hearing did not fully address those implications and this caused the Tribunal to seek further assistance by way of written submissions after a first draft of this judgment had been written.

"In the course of preparing the judgment, the Tribunal has decided to seek further written submissions from the Home Office, the complainant and CTT on the point made at paragraphs 24 and 34-36 of the IOPC submissions of 11 March 2022, and also referred to in the MPS written submissions. This concerns the submission that Parliament cannot have intended that the handset should be part of a public telecommunications system because otherwise downloading communications stored on it with no other authority than the consent of the user would be a criminal offence and its product inadmissible. The Tribunal noted that reliance was placed on Chapter 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 but that it had not heard from the Home Office as to what the purpose of these provisions is."

"3. The circumstances of the conduct complained of were such that it would not
have been appropriate for it to take place without a warrant under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016), in particular, a targeted equipment interference warrant under Part 5 (TEIW), or at least without proper consideration having been given to whether such authority should be sought.
4. Accordingly, the conduct complained of took place within challengeable circumstances (within the meaning of section 65(7) of RIPA 2000 (section 65(8)(a)), and the Tribunal is the appropriate forum for his complaint (section 65(4) of RIPA 2000).
5. It is submitted that, in the absence of such authority, the conduct complained of was a violation of his rights under the Convention, in particular Article 8."

26. We have concluded that this handset, an iPhone 7 smartphone, was not part of a telecommunications system for the purposes of the IPA 2016 at the time when it was downloaded by MPS at the request of the IOPC. This is because at that time it was not connected to the public telecommunications system of which it had formerly been a part. We do not need to decide whether that was a public or a private system, although it was almost certainly the former. That means that the basis on which it is suggested by Sergeant Hill that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over this claim is not made out. Warrantry authorising interceptions as defined in section 4 of the IPA 2016 is not required where no such interception is to take place. On our finding that the handset was not part of the telecommunications system at the time of the download, the download was not an interception as defined.

27. In submissions received after the Tribunal's request for further assistance, the possibility was canvassed that the Tribunal may have jurisdiction because the downloading required a Directed Surveillance Authorisation (DSA) as covert surveillance under Part II of RIPA 2000. A further possibility may be that although a TEIW is not required for the download of a disconnected handset, it may nevertheless be available to render such conduct lawful notwithstanding the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. It might be argued that in conducting the download without having such a warrant or authorisation in place the MPS and IOPC committed an act which was within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal by virtue of section 65(4) and (7)(b) of IPA. No such arguments have been deployed before us in fully reasoned form and we consider that in the facts of this case we do not need to resolve them. This is because this claim is, in truth, a claim about misuse of a PACE power. The IOPC acted as they did because they wrongly thought they were acting lawfully under section 19 of PACE. It would be artificial to determine that they should have given "proper consideration to whether [a TEIW or DSA] should be sought", simply for the purpose of clothing this Tribunal with jurisdiction to give a remedy for an admitted wrong. Their flawed analysis of the PACE powers available to them meant that it never occurred to them that they might need some other authority. This was a mistake, but it was a mistake about PACE and not about the IPA 2016. It is very clear that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to PACE and that disputes about that Act are for the courts to resolve. The Tribunal has decided in the case of KJF v. Surrey Police (IPT/20/02/C), published on the same day as this decision. that if the seizure of a mobile-phone is lawful under PACE by virtue of a search warrant, no further authorisation is required to recover its stored data. The same answer would follow in the case of a seizure under section 19 of PACE. The issue here, therefore, is whether this download was lawful under PACE or not which is not a matter for us. There is, of course, no dispute about the substance of that issue. We do not know what negotiations there have been between the IOPC and MPS and Sergeant Hill about his various claims, but it appears to us that it would not be a sensible use of public resources for any further litigation to take place about this claim, and we would hope that a settlement can be achieved.

28. Having summarised our conclusions, we will now set out our reasoning in full because of the importance of the question of when and whether a mobile phone is part of a telecommunications system so that acquiring communications from it requires warrantry under IPA 2016.

29. We deal with this issue as a matter of statutory construction of the scheme in Parts 1, 2 and 5 of the IPA 2016 which establish a code for the interception of communications. That code is designed to function alongside other provisions in the IPA 2016 which regulate the obtaining of other kinds of material in other circumstances. Although many of the relevant provisions resemble predecessors in RIPA, and some have their origins as far back as the Interception of Communications Act 1985, we consider that these earlier statutory schemes do not provide any useful assistance in the construction of the IPA 2016. Much of the IPA 2016 scheme is entirely new. Whether a handset is, or is not, part of a telecommunications system for the purposes of conduct regulated by a statute is matter of the construction of that statute.

30. For ease of reference, the principal relevant provisions of the IPA 2016 are set out below. In general, however, the effect of the Act is to render unlawful any interception of communications which is not specifically rendered lawful by the IPA 2016 or some other provision. Part 2 of the Act contains a system of warrants which may render interception lawful. This system is new. It replaces the earlier system established by RIPA. Other provisions of the IPA 2016 deal with TEIWs (Part 5) and Bulk Warrants (Part 6) neither of which were dealt with at all in RIPA, perhaps because their use had not been avowed by the state when RIPA was enacted. Section 56 contains a provision which excludes the product of interception from evidence, but that is subject to exceptions contained in Schedule 3. Where communications have been lawfully obtained while stored in or by the system then they may be put into evidence, unless that interception occurred under the authority of one of the three kinds of warrant listed in section 15(1) of IPA 2016, in which case they are not admissible. It appears that interception of stored communications may lawfully occur under those provisions (inadmissible in evidence), and under section 44(2) of IPA 2016 or Part 5 of IPA 2016 (admissible in evidence). Section 44(2) deals with interception as a form of surveillance where it takes place with consent of either the sender or the intended recipient of a communication. As we have said we are not concerned with interception as defined in that Act.

31. Because of the widespread use of downloads from mobile phones in evidence in criminal trials it is important to be as clear as possible about the legal basis on which that extraction of data is done. There is some level of uncertainty about this, which is perhaps surprising. In response to our request at [24] above, the Home Office referred us to the Explanatory Notes for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. These summarise the purpose of the new provision contained in section 37 of that Act which allows extraction of information from an electronic device with the consent of a user. The Notes refer to some of the uncertainty which existed, and still exists on respect of conduct before the 2022 Act was brought into force in November 2022. They say this:-

"49. In June 2020, the Information Commissioner's Office published a report on police practice in England and Wales around the extraction and analysis of data from mobile phones and other electronic communication devices of victims, witnesses and suspects during a criminal investigation. The report identified inconsistencies in the approach taken by police forces to extract digital data and the complex legal framework that governs this practice. It recommended clarifying the lawful basis for data extraction and introducing a code of practice to guide this activity in order to increase consistency and ensure that any data taken is strictly necessary for the purpose of the investigation.
"50. Chapter 3 of Part 2 introduces a specific legal basis for the extraction of information from complainants', witnesses' and others' digital devices. This will be a non-coercive power based on the agreement of the routine user of the device. It will be applicable to specified law enforcement and regulatory agencies, such as the police, who extract information to support investigations or to protect vulnerable people from harm. This will provide a nationally consistent legal basis for the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting criminal offences and for safeguarding and preventing serious harm."

32. Parliament does not appear to have dealt with the provisions of section 44(2) of IPA 2016 or to have explained how the two different statutory schemes operate together. We do not have to decide that. The purpose of referring to the new Act is to explain the difficult context in which our decision as to jurisdiction arises.

33. Mobile phone extraction is commonly done under powers conferred by PACE, and in that case the exclusionary rule in section 56 of IPA 2016 does not apply because of section 6(1)(c)(ii) of and paragraph 2(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to IPA 2016.

a. All intercept activity is to be controlled by a legal system which ensures that its use conforms to law, and is conducted under independent judicial oversight. This is designed to protect the rights of those affected by it, while allowing the security services, and other agencies who may engage in intercept activity, effective tools for intelligence gathering and the acquisition of relevant evidence in investigations.

b. The product of interception in the commonly understood sense of phone tapping or monitoring messages in real time while the conversation or chat is ongoing is excluded from use in evidence. This is a policy choice by Parliament to preserve the value of the use of the technique for intelligence purposes. It is a clear and striking exception to the common law rule of evidence that in criminal proceedings relevant evidence is admissible, subject to some exclusionary rules and an overarching discretion to exclude evidence under section 78 of PACE. In our judgment, this exclusionary rule should be confined to the clear words of the Act. It does not exist for the protection of anyone or anything other than the value of intercept as an intelligence gathering tool for the security services and others who are entitled to use it. It provides an obvious windfall benefit to those who benefit from the exclusion of probative evidence of criminality, but that is not its purpose. This policy can be found set out in many public documents. We will cite only one, the document which gave rise to RIPA. This was Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom, A Consultation Paper Cm 4368, June 1999, which said at 8.3:-
"The main counter-argument, for retention of the prohibition on evidential use, is that exposure of interception capabilities will educate criminals and terrorists who will then use greater counter interception measures than they presently do. This would mean that any advantage gained by repeal would be short lived and would make interception operations more difficult in the longer term."

c. The same policy argument does not, it would seem, apply to interception by the recovery of stored messages from the telecommunications system. Provided their acquisition brings them within Schedule 3 to the Act, they may be deployed in evidence.

35. We will set out some of the key provisions of the IPA 2016 with parts which are not relevant to the present issue omitted. This case concerns an extraction of data from a handset which was admittedly unlawful, and which was carried out when the handset had been seized and was in "airplane mode", and incapable of transmitting or receiving communications. The SIM card was removed and the phone switched on in a "Faraday environment". That was all designed to prevent it from communicating by any means. A communication whose content was made available by the extraction would commonly be one which was stored on the handset after transmission. If the handset was part of the system the Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of the unlawful extraction of all such communications. We do not know what was recovered from the phone, because it was never examined. We are sure that some of the recovered material comprised communications stored on the handset after transmission to or from it by means of a public telecommunications system. That is what might engage the interception regime, and the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. We are not concerned with what may lawfully have been done if a TEIW had been obtained under Part 5 of IPA 2016 because no such warrant was obtained. We do note that a Part 5 warrant could permit the obtaining of stored communications and their use in evidence, which provides some support for the proposition that the policy of IPA 2016 is that this technique for extraction of material does not require the protection from public view which is accorded to the interception of communications in the course of transmission. Otherwise, nothing in this decision has any relevance to Part 5.

(a) the person intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of-

(2) But it is not an offence under subsection (1) for a person to intercept a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a private telecommunication system if the person-

(b) has the express or implied consent of such a person to carry out the interception.

(4) Section 6 contains provision about when a person has lawful authority to carry out an interception.

(5) For the meaning of the terms used in subsection (1)(a)(i) to (iii), see sections 261 and 262.

37. Section 4 is an important provision which defines some terms used in section 3. Other relevant terms are defined in section 261. Section 5 deals with interception of broadcasts and is not material. It is because of section 4 that it matters whether the handset is part of the system or not. If so, its extraction involved interfering with it, which would be a "relevant act". The effect of the download was to extract communications which were stored on it, and to make them available. This means that the relevant act was done at a relevant time. At the time of the interference with the handset, the material on the handset included communications which had been transmitted by the system, and were stored on it. Section 4(4)(b) means that interference with them constitutes interception if the handset where they were stored was part of the system.

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by means of a telecommunication system if, and only if-

(b) the effect of the relevant act is to make any content of the communication available, at a relevant time, to a person who is not the sender or intended recipient of the communication.

For the meaning of "content" in relation to a communication, see section 261(6).

(2) In this section "relevant act", in relation to a telecommunication system, means-

(3) For the purposes of this section references to modifying a telecommunication system include references to attaching any apparatus to, or otherwise modifying or interfering with-

(b) any wireless telegraphy apparatus used for making transmissions to or from apparatus that is part of the system.

(4) In this section "relevant time", in relation to a communication transmitted by means of a telecommunication system, means-

(b) any time when the communication is stored in or by the system (whether before or after its transmission).

(5) For the purposes of this section, the cases in which any content of a communication is to be taken to be made available to a person at a relevant time include any case in which any of the communication is diverted or recorded at a relevant time so as to make any content of the communication available to a person after that time.

(6) In this section "wireless telegraphy" and "wireless telegraphy apparatus" have the same meaning as in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (see sections 116 and 117 of that Act).

38. Section 6 deals with the meaning of lawful authority. The MPS believed that they were acting lawfully because powers existed under PACE, as they had been assured by IOPC. This would mean, if true, that section 6(1)(c)(ii) would apply.

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person has lawful authority to carry out an interception if, and only if-

(i) a targeted interception warrant or mutual assistance warrant under Chapter 1 of Part 2, or

(ii) a bulk interception warrant under Chapter 1 of Part 6, (b) the interception is authorised by any of sections 44 to 52, or

(b) the interception is authorised by any of sections 44 to 52, or

(i) is carried out in accordance with a targeted equipment interference warrant under Part 5 or a bulk equipment interference warrant under Chapter 3 of Part 6,

(ii) is in the exercise of any statutory power that is exercised for the purpose of obtaining information or taking possession of any document or other property, or

(2) Conduct which has lawful authority for the purposes of this Act by virtue of subsection (1)(a) or (b) is to be treated as lawful for all other purposes.

(a) is carried out in accordance with a warrant under Chapter 1 of Part 2 or a bulk interception warrant, or

(b) is authorised by any of sections 44 to 52, is to be treated as lawful for all purposes.

39. It is unnecessary to set out section 56 in full, but in part it provides:-

(1) No evidence may be adduced, question asked, assertion or disclosure made or other thing done in, for the purposes of or in connection with any legal proceedings or Inquiries Act proceedings which (in any manner)-

(a) discloses, in circumstances from which its origin in interception-related conduct may be inferred-

(b) tends to suggest that any interception-related conduct has or may have occurred or may be going to occur.

40. Schedule 3 contains the exceptions and only paragraph 2 is relevant for present purposes, because it provides that the exercise of a power rendered lawful by section 6(1)(c) does not result in the product being inadmissible in legal proceedings:-

2 (1) Section 56(1)(a) does not prohibit the disclosure of any content of a communication, or any secondary data obtained from a communication, if the interception of that communication was lawful by virtue of any of the following provisions-

(b) sections 1(5)(c), 3 and 4 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;

(2) Where any disclosure is proposed to be, or has been, made on the grounds that it is authorised by sub-paragraph (1), section 56(1) does not prohibit the doing of anything in, or for the purposes of, so much of any proceedings as relates to the question whether that disclosure is or was so authorised.

41. Section 261 provides some "Telecommunications Definitions" for the purposes of the whole Act. In part, it provides that a telecommunications system includes any apparatus comprised in it, see sub-section (13). That might be regarded as a statement of the obvious, because if apparatus is comprised in a system it might be thought that the statement that the system included it is a different way of saying the same thing. To put it another way, if the Act had said "a system includes what it includes" it would not have borne a radically different meaning as a matter of English language. It is probably best to treat this parenthesis as a recognition by Parliament that apparatus may be included as part of a system even though it is not physically connected to it. In this way it reinforces the definition of "apparatus" in section 263(1).

Communication
(2) "Communication", in relation to a telecommunications operator,

(a) anything comprising speech, music, sounds, visual images or data of any description, and

(b) signals serving either for the impartation of anything between persons, between a person and a thing or between things or for the actuation or control of any apparatus.

(6) "Content", in relation to a communication and a telecommunications operator, telecommunications service or telecommunication system, means any element of the communication, or any data attached to or logically associated with the communication, which reveals anything of what might reasonably be

(a) any meaning arising from the fact of the communication or from any data relating to the transmission of the communication is to be disregarded, and (b) anything which is systems data is not content.

(8) "Public telecommunications service" means any telecommunications service which is offered or provided to the public, or a substantial section of the public, in any one or more parts of the United Kingdom.

(9) "Public telecommunication system" means a telecommunication system located in the United Kingdom-

(b) which consists of parts of any other telecommunication system by means of which any such service is provided.

(a) offers or provides a telecommunications service to persons in the United Kingdom, or

(b) controls or provides a telecommunication system which is (wholly or partly)-

(11) "Telecommunications service" means any service that consists in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, any telecommunication system (whether or not one provided by the person providing the service).

(12) For the purposes of subsection (11), the cases in which a service is to be taken to consist in the provision of access to, and of facilities for making use of, a telecommunication system include any case where a service consists in or includes facilitating the creation, management or storage of communications transmitted, or that may be transmitted, by means of such a system.

(13) "Telecommunication system" means a system (including the apparatus comprised in it) that exists (whether wholly or partly in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of communications by any means involving the use of electrical or electromagnetic energy.

(14) "Private telecommunication system" means any telecommunication system which-

(b) is attached, directly or indirectly, to a public telecommunication system (whether or not for the purposes of the communication in question), and

(c) includes apparatus which is both located in the United Kingdom and used (with or without other apparatus) for making the attachment to that public telecommunication system.

42. Section 263 contains general definitions, only one of which it is necessary to set out:-

"apparatus" includes any equipment, machinery or device (whether physical or logical) and any wire or cable.

43. We now turn to the reasons for our decision on the issue as to jurisdiction which the parties dealt with at the hearing. Was the mobile phone handset (or at least the part where communications were stored) part of the telecommunications system at the time of the download? As we have indicated, we have decided that the answer is No.

44. We consider that the right approach to this case is to decide whether Sergeant Hill's handset was apparatus which formed part of the telecommunications system, or whether it was "wireless telegraphy apparatus used for making transmissions to or from apparatus that is part of the system" by reference to the IPA 2016. That dichotomy is created by section 4(3) of the Act, and is operative for our purposes because of section 4(4)(b). Section 4(4)(b) extends the definition of interception to cover messages which are stored in or by the system. The equivalent RIPA provisions are not identical, and section 2(7) of RIPA (which extended the definition of "in the course of transmission" so that stored messages were captured) is not replicated in the IPA 2016. A broadly similar effect may be achieved by section 4(5) which does not depend on the concept of storage, but which extends the meaning of "making content available to a person" to cover the situation formerly dealt with by section 2(7) of RIPA. In the IPA 2016 there is no extended definition of "stored on the system". The statutory provisions appear to be intended to have a similar effect, but they achieve that effect by a different route.

45. In this case the natural meaning of the words used does not assist in answering the question. In plain language a mobile phone handset could rationally be described as part of the telecommunications system to which the user connects via the SIM card. It could equally well be described as "wireless telegraphy apparatus used for making transmissions to or from apparatus that is part of the system". Which definition is chosen determines whether extracting the content of communications stored on the handset constitutes interception of communications or not. In our judgment the answer to the question comes from a close analysis of the statute within which the relevant terms are used to see which construction best serves the statutory purpose and fits best into the highly complex statutory scheme created by the IPA 2016. It is almost so obvious that it does not need to be said that this process is unlikely to be assisted by analysis of the previous statutory schemes which the IPA 2016 replaced. That analysis is itself a highly complex task and, if it is not relevant, one which serves only to confuse.

46. On this approach it is unnecessary to consider authority, because there is no relevant authority on the IPA 2016. The provision just identified, section 4(5) of IPA 2016, appears to have been designed to replace the effect of section 2(7) of RIPA as interpreted by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in R v. Coulson [2013] EWCA Crim 1026. A different statutory device is used with a similar result. One purpose of this seems to have been to create a new code which avoids the need to consider decisions under previous legislation. This is not unprecedented in the legislative history of the three statutory schemes which have been created by Parliament (the Interception of Communications Act 1985, RIPA and the IPA 2016). Changes have often been driven by decisions of the UK or Strasbourg courts. We are grateful to the immense industry of those who have compiled our bundle of authorities which runs to 727 pages. We have considered all those materials, but do not find any one of them of decisive value in answering the question before us.

47. We should say something about the decision of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in R. v. A, B, D and C [2021] EWCA Crim 128. In that case the Court of Appeal upheld a judge's finding of fact about messages intercepted by French law enforcement agencies and made available to UK law enforcement agencies for use as evidence in criminal investigations and proceedings. The judge had found that these were extracted while stored in the handsets and not while being transmitted. This meant that either they were admissible because the handset was not part of the system and so there was no interception, or because they were extracted while stored on the handset in the system under warrantry which rendered the product lawful. In A, B, D & C it was not necessary to decide whether the handset of a mobile phone was part of the telecommunications system. At paragraph 18, the Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment of the court, said this:-

"We have reservations about whether handsets do ordinarily form part of the "system", given the nature of modern mobile phones which have many functions. In particular, section 4(3) extends the definition of an act of interception to include interference with any wireless telegraphy apparatus used for making transmissions to or from apparatus that is part of the system. Before us it was suggested that this would include mobile phone handsets. This extension would be unnecessary if the wireless telegraphy apparatus is part of the system. The extension of "relevant act" so that it extends to interference with handsets may be contrasted with the lack of any such extension in relation to the definition of the system for the purposes of considering the "relevant time". It would suggest that unless specifically provided otherwise, handsets are not part of "the system". Section 4(3) would not be necessary at all if the agreed position of the parties before us is right. This issue was not argued by the parties, and we will approach this appeal on the agreed basis that in respect of the EncroChat system the handsets are part of "the system". Whether that is right or not in general, it is possible to see how it could be true of this particular system in view of the findings of the judge about its nature, in paragraph 4 of his ruling set out above at our para 11. We do not decide the point, but proceed on the basis of the agreement between the parties reached in respect of this particular system."

48. It is not surprising that the court expressed reservations about accepting an agreement as to the law when it had not heard argument about it. Courts, not parties, construe statutes authoritatively, and courts are reluctant to reach decisions without argument on issues which may have unforeseen ramifications. The reasons why it entertains those reservations are obviously not intended to be binding conclusions on the point. In our judgment, the purpose of this passage was simply to highlight for future courts that the agreement reached between the parties does not have the force of law, as it would if it had been endorsed by the court.

49. The decision in A, B, D & C is authoritative and binding in its clear endorsement of the approach described above at [45]-[46] as the right approach to determination of issues of statutory construction arising under the IPA 2016.

50. We begin the analysis by making the obvious point that the IPA 2016 is concerned with the interception of communications which have been or are being transmitted. This is the effect of section 4(1) and (4). Section 4(4)(b) then extends the scope of "intercept", as a term used in the statute, to include communications stored in or by the system whether before or after transmission. The "relevant time" in respect of such communications is either while they are being transmitted or while they are stored in that way.

51. This is the answer to one concern expressed by the Court of Appeal in A, B, D & C. The court referred to the "many functions" of a modern mobile phone handset. This Part of the Act has nothing to say about any function which is not part of the process by which communications are transmitted. As an example, a mobile phone often has a camera and a storage area where photographs are held. Taking a photograph and storing it (without transmitting it) is not an activity which involves a "communication". Such photographs can be extracted without any engagement of the powers to intercept communications, because they are not communications. There are other protections against unlawful access to computers, and the IPA 2016 created a new scheme of warrantry to cover that situation. When the user sends a photograph (or video footage) by a communication system (in the present case using WhatsApp) a communication is created and transmitted, and the interception regime is engaged in respect of that process. That photograph having by then become a "communication", making its content available to a person other than the intended recipient will be an act of interception, if it is stored on the handset and if the handset is part of the telecommunications system.

52. The question, therefore, is not whether the whole operation of the mobile phone handset is part of a telecommunications system, but whether the function which operates to create, transmit, receive, and store communications is part of a telecommunications system.

53. In our judgment, section 4(4) of the IPA 2016 is at the heart of this question. The act of interception is a result of a person doing a relevant act at a relevant time. Section 4(3), which involves the dichotomy between, on the one hand, part of the system and, on the other, "wireless telegraphy apparatus used for making transmissions to or from apparatus that is part of the system" relates to the relevant act and not the relevant time. It contemplates that there may be apparatus which is part of the system, and other apparatus which is not. It simply provides that it will be a relevant act to interfere with either type of apparatus if the effect of the interference is to make any content of the communication available, at a relevant time, to a person who is not the sender or intended recipient of the communication, see section 4(1). Section 4(3) has nothing to say about what the relevant time is, which is the subject of section 4(4).

54. We have helpful technical material before us from experts and from Ofcom. Ofcom responded to a request for assistance from the Tribunal for assistance about how telecommunications systems work, and we are extremely grateful. This case concerns a standard smartphone, normally connected to a telecommunications system by a SIM card supplied by the operator of that system or, sometimes, by another operator licensed by that operator to supply services using its system. The following passage from Ofcom's Note explains matters:-

10. There are currently four Mobile Network Operators (MNOs) in the UK (Vodafone, 02/Telefonica, EE and Three) which operate the mobile phone network used by the general public. They operate their own networks of cell towers in the UK. While some MNOs share the use of some masts, cellular coverage varies between MNOs where masts are installed separately covering differing geographic areas, and also depending on the physical characteristics of the frequency band over which that MNO operates.

11. There are also a number of Mobile Virtual Network Operators ("MVNOs") who contract with the MNOs for the resale of mobile services (e.g. Virgin Mobile, Tesco). These MVNOs do not have their own cell towers or base stations, and use the cellular network of the MNOs from whom they have bought capacity in order to sell mobile phone services as a "white label" product. This means that although the customer has a contract with an MVNO, they are in effect using the "parent" MNO's cellular network. Some MVNOs do have some physical equipment such as elements of the core network or transmission network, which connect to the mobile phone and landline networks (e.g. Virgin Mobile). MNOs and MVNOs offer a large number of different mobile phone call and data packages to the public. These include monthly contracts which include a certain number of minutes, text messages and data on payment of a monthly sum, and pay-as-you-go contracts where the consumer pays in advance for a certain amount of voice calls, text messages or data.

12. A mobile phone contains a few key pieces of technology which enable a user to make and receive calls, send and receive text messages and access the internet. These include a transmitter and receiver, and a SIM card which contains the user's ID and authentication keys. SIM cards are activated on the network by the MNOs and MVNOs when customers conclude contracts. They link the user, their phone number, and their home network. Each SIM card has a unique value known as the "IMSI" which identifies it to its MNO (or "parent" MNO if the user has a contract with an MVNO). When the handset is switched on, it sends a signal to the closest mobile phone cell tower operated by its MNO or "parent" MNO. The handset's SIM card is issued an authentication challenge by the MNO. The SIM then uses its authentication key and a specific algorithm to generate a response which is sent back to the MNO. The MNO in turn verifies that this response matches the response they were expecting from their authentication database. Only after successful authentication can the handset start making and receiving calls, sending and receiving text messages and connect to the internet or other data services.

55. Where the plain words of the provisions do not provide an obvious answer to the classification of a mobile phone handset for the purposes of the IPA 2016, the Explanatory Notes published when the Bill which became the IPA 2016 was introduced into Parliament may be of value. It is clearly established that Explanatory Notes are a legitimate aid to construction in that they may illustrate the context of a statute and the mischief at which it is aimed. Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation 8th Edition paragraph 24.14 sets out the proper approach, and we will follow it. We would add that this is an area where Explanatory Notes are likely to be particularly helpful because the legislation is very complex and will have been considered by many agencies of the UK Government before being introduced. It is reasonable to assume that the Notes will have been the subject of careful consultation with those agencies where a high level of expertise about investigatory powers resides. Having said that, however, it is of course true that the task of the Tribunal is to construe the statute and not the Explanatory Notes. If, as is submitted by the IOPC, the Explanatory Notes do not accurately describe what Parliament enacted, then the words used by Parliament prevail. That much is obvious. However, here the position is nuanced and this cannot be firmly asserted. That is why recourse to the Notes is valuable.

56. The Explanatory Notes contain these paragraphs, under the heading "Section 4: Definition of “interception” etc.":-

39. This section defines interception and sets out when interception is regarded as taking place in the United Kingdom.

40. Subsections (1) to (5) set out what constitutes intercepting a communication in the course of its transmission by a telecommunications system. There are three elements. Firstly, the person must perform a “relevant act”, which is defined in subsection (2) and includes modifying or interfering with the system. Secondly, the consequence of the relevant act must be to make the content of the communication available to a person who is not the sender or intended recipient. Thirdly, the content must be made available at a “relevant time”, which means a time while the communication is being transmitted or any time when the communication is stored in or by the system.

41. The definition of a relevant time makes it clear that interception includes obtaining stored communications, such as messages stored on phones, tablets and other individual devices whether before or after they are sent.

Example: An email which has been sent and is stored on an email server or a voicemail message which has been stored on a telecommunications system to be retrieved later. This would also include an email which had not been sent by an individual but was stored on a server (e.g. a draft email).

"…..does not accurately reflect what Parliament enacted: the Act does not refer to communications stored "on phones, tablets and other individual devices". If this had been Parliament's intention it would have said so, or it would have referred, as it does elsewhere, to "apparatus". The Act refers only to communications "stored in or by the system". The Explanatory Note to s.261 does not refer to individual devices as being part of the "system". There is no justification in the Act for the assumption that "phones, tablets and other individual devices" will be "the system" or even "part of the system", particularly when they are offline and unable to communicate or attach to a "system"."

58. Counsel to the Tribunal invites the Tribunal to note that paragraph 41 of the Explanatory Notes was expressly cited by a Home Office Minister during Parliamentary debates in 2019 relating to a proposed (and subsequently enacted) amendment to section 52 of the IPA 2016. This was during the debate on what became the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019. This is admissible because a situation where a statute requires the court to determine whether a mobile phone handset is part of a telecommunications system, but does not by clear words provide the answer, involves the kind of ambiguity contemplated in Pepper v. Hart [1993] AC 593. The statement relied on is a statement of a Minister promoting a Bill. The Bill concerned is not the Act which the Tribunal is required to construe, but a Bill which amended that Act. It amended section 52 of the IPA 2016. The Minister of State at the Home Office explained the existing meaning of that provision as follows:-

"As I said on Report, Section 52 can authorise obtaining stored as well as intercepted communications. Section 52 should be read alongside Section 4 of the IP Act, which outlines the definition of "interception" and related terms. According to that section, "interception" refers to the interception of a communication, "in the course of its transmission by means of a public telecommunication system or a public postal service". A person intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission if the effect is to access any content of the communication "at a relevant time". It is the meaning of "relevant time" that is significant. It can mean a time when the communication is transmitted but it can also mean, as Section 4(4) of the IP Act says, "any time when the communication is stored in or by the system (whether before or after its transmission)".It is clear that where, as in Section 52, the IP Act refers to the "interception of a communication in the course of its transmission" this includes accessing stored communications from the relevant telecommunications system, such as messages stored on phones, tablets or other devices, whether before or after they are sent. By way of an example, this would include an email that has been sent and is stored on an email server or a voicemail message that has been stored on a telecommunications system to be retrieved later. It would also include an unsent, draft email that is stored on a server. I hope that this explains it adequately to the noble Baroness but I would also direct her to the Explanatory Notes for Section 4 of the Investigatory Powers Act. To briefly sum up, I hope that I have made it clear that Section 52 of the IPA not only covers material intercepted in the course of transmission but can authorise obtaining stored communications as well."

59. We consider that paragraph 41 of the Explanatory Notes is not a sufficient basis on which to answer the question. The passage is not very clear and does not explain why the "phones, tablets or other devices" are part of the system, rather than apparatus used for connecting to the system. In other words although they appear to provide an answer to the question there is no explanation or justification of how that answer is derived from the statute. We give the Note some weight in identifying the mischief at which the provision is aimed, and rely on it as some support for the proposition that a mobile phone handset is part of the telecommunications system when it is connected to it, and in a position to transmit communications through it.

60. It is perhaps worth noting that the Explanatory Note is unclear or incomplete as an aid to construction in one further respect. The example suggests that a draft email which had not been sent but which was stored on a server would be protected from unlawful interception by section 3 of the IPA 2016 Act. Section 3 protects only "communications". A draft email which has not been sent may or may not be a "communication". We do not need to decide this question and do not do so.

61. Further, we consider that although the clear words of the IPA 2016 do not provide a conclusive answer to the question, they provide a significant steer in the same direction as the Explanatory Note. The key word used is "system". The question is whether the handset, when used in the way described in the Ofcom Note at its paragraph 12, is part of that "system". "Telecommunications system" is defined in section 261(13) of the IPA 2016 which we repeat here for ease of comprehension:-

"Telecommunication system" means a system (including the apparatus comprised in it) that exists (whether wholly or partly in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) for the purpose of facilitating the transmission of communications by any means involving the use of electrical or electromagnetic energy.

62. The word "facilitating" in the sense of "making things easier" does not really cover what a telecommunications system does. With such a system, the transmission of communications by means involving the use of electrical or electromagnetic energy is possible. Without one it is not. There are no degrees of ease with which it might happen. The system either works or it does not. If it works, it "facilitates" communication, but in a slightly different sense. The system does not make this transmission easier than it would otherwise be: it achieves it. Once it is understood that the word facilitating is to be read in this sense, the answer to our problem becomes a little clearer. What use is a system of the kind we are considering without handsets? The vast complex of different networks operating together described by Ofcom would not achieve anything for a person wishing to communicate with another if both parties did not have a handset. The rest of the infrastructure would not be "facilitating" communication between them: it would not be happening at all. A system which exists for the purpose of achieving the transmission of communications must comprise everything which is necessary for that purpose. The fact that apparatus is not physically connected to it does not mean that it is not part of the system, see the general definition of "apparatus" in section 263(1) at paragraph [44] above. It follows that a part of the system which may be connected to it in this way may also be disconnected from it.

63. A handset converts the voice into "electrical or electromagnetic energy" and transmits it. At the other end, it receives the transmission and converts into voice again. Without that no communication by voice call can take place. The contribution of the handset to the success of the "system" is fundamental.

64. The connection of the handset to the system is through its SIM card, at least in the mode of operation currently under consideration. Other types of system operate with a less close connection between the device and the system which may require different answers in their cases. An example is a laptop which accesses the internet through public wifi, and is able to facilitate voicecalls by Zoom, Teams or some other similar software. The mobile phone network is not involved at all. This is an important point when considering the "redundancy argument" which concerned the Court of Appeal in R v. A, B, D & C when considering section 4(3). Section 4(3) is not redundant if the mobile phone handset is part of the system as described in paragraph 12 of the Ofcom Note. There are many other systems now in existence (and no doubt will be further developments during the life of the IPA 2016) where the provision in section 4(3)(b) may be material. We have evidence from Ofcom on this subject which was not before the Court of Appeal and accordingly are less troubled by the argument based on section 4(3).

65. The word "system" is not the same as "network". "Network" is not a word used in IPA 2016 but the expression "telecommunications service" is used. They are not synonymous but may overlap in meaning. A "system" may include a large number of networks, or "services", many of which are not accessed when an individual communication is transmitted. Each MNO has access to the networks of all the other MNOs, and to the landline network, and the system will route the call to the network which enables the recipient to receive it. The distinction in meaning in section 261 of IPA 2016 between "telecommunications system" and "telecommunications service" confirms that the word "system" connotes a broader concept which may incorporate a number of different "telecommunications services".

66. We therefore conclude that a mobile phone handset when operating in the way described in paragraph 12 of the Ofcom Note is part of the telecommunications system, and that unlawful interception of communications stored on it does fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. However, when it is disconnected from the system and not capable of communicating through it, it is not sensible to describe is as remaining part of the system. Thus, at the point of the download in this case, when it was in airplane mode, without a SIM card and in Faraday conditions, it was not part of the system. For that reason, no intercept was involved because the "relevant act" did not occur at a "relevant time". The communications which were made available by the act of downloading were not, at the time when that occurred, stored in or by the system. They were stored in a handset which had been part of the system, but no longer was. By the time of the download it had been disabled following its seizure to prevent it from making or receiving any further communications to or from the system. This is why the download in the present case did not result in the extraction of communications stored in or by the system. This approach protects "live handsets" which are in use by the user from interception otherwise than as authorised by the IPA warranty regime. Once they have been disabled, they can be lawfully accessed without engaging the IPA regime using other statutory powers, such as section 19 of PACE.

67. This is a clear case, where the download was done by a MPS examiner in forensic conditions designed to isolate the handset from the telecommunications system. We say nothing about other circumstances which may arise where a handset is temporarily not in communication with the system for other reasons. Those cases will have to be considered when they arise.

68 We do not accept the submission that a mobile phone handset is, on its own, a private telecommunications system which becomes attached to a public telecommunications system via its SIM card. There is no hint that Parliament intended that this should be the result and it would have significant consequences which are not catered for in the Act. The Act imposes obligations on the operators of telecommunications systems, see section 261(10)(b), and we are unable to work through the precise consequences of a finding that every user of a mobile phone is an operator of a private telecommunications system. We are, however, quite confident that Parliament would only bring such a state of affairs into existence after careful thought and by the use of very clear language. The absence of any reference to this suggested consequence of the IPA 2016 in the Explanatory Notes, referred to above, confirms our view that this was not the intention of Parliament.

69. We therefore conclude that Sergeant Hill is entitled to a remedy from this Tribunal in respect of the unlawful obtaining of his communications data further to the authorisation granted by Mr. Benbow on 28 March 2019. That authorisation is now quashed and therefore the conduct carried out under its terms is not "lawful for all purposes" as would otherwise be the result of section 21(2) of RIPA as it was at the material time.

70. We cannot grant a remedy in relation to the unlawful downloading of the data from his mobile phone handset stored on the handset because the Tribunal has no jurisdiction in this respect.

71. We direct that Sergeant Hill should file and serve any submissions and evidence on which he wishes to rely in respect of the remedies which should be granted to him, in addition to the quashing order made at [68] above. This should include the terms of any declaration(s) he seeks. We have his submissions on remedy already but grant the parties an opportunity to finalise their position on remedy in the light of this decision. We will allow 28 days from the date when this decision is sent to his solicitors by the Tribunal staff.

72. The IOPC and MPS should have the opportunity to respond if so advised by submitting any further representations or evidence on which they propose to rely in the light of this decision, in particular in relation to the relevance to the quantification of such compensation as is payable of the serious culpability of the IOPC. Material should be lodged within 21 days of the expiry of the time allowed to Sergeant Hill under paragraph [70] above.

73. The Tribunal will then decide on remedies on the papers without a further hearing.

74. We specify, in accordance with s. 67A(2) of RIPA, that the relevant appellate court is the Court of Appeal in England & Wales

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Investigatory Powers Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Investigatory Powers Tribunal >> Damian Hill and Metropolitan Police Service & Independent Office For Police Conduct [2022] UKIP Trib 6 (30 December 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIPTrib/2022/6.html Cite as: [2022] UKIP Trib 6

United Kingdom Investigatory Powers Tribunal