Snooping laws

THERE will be occasions when covert surveillance operations operations need to be mounted at a local level. Who can forget the video footage of benefit cheats filmed playing golf, or pursuing another sport, when claiming that their disability precluded them from undertaking regular employment?
By The Newsroom
Published 3rd Oct 2011, 12:05 BST

Likewise, surveillance cameras remain an important weapon in detecting, and prosecuting, flytippers. However, these are time-consuming exercises – just four per cent of covert operations mounted locally have resulted in successful prosecutions.

Yet, while every possible resources should be used to identify criminality, this level of prosecutions appears disproportionate with the level of manpower involved, and the need for all public sector bodies to deploy their resources sensibly.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

After all, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act was only introduced in 2006 so that town halls could assist the police, and others, in gathering intelligence about suspected terrorist-related activities. Yet, since then, it has been widely used by councils to identify people who allow their dogs to foul pavements – or parents suspected of providing false information so their offspring can attend their preferred school of choice.

Some councils have, rightly, scaled back their activities, while others have not done so. However these ambiguities would not exist if the use of these surveillance powers was moderated.

In short, each instance should require the prior approval of a magistrate who has studied the supporting evidence. Covert cameras should also only be used in those cases where the offence in question carries a prison sentence of at least six months. Given the failure of some “big brother” councils to abide by this doctrine, Ministers should now lay down the law without further delay.