RIP s22 notices SI

[Peter Fairbrother]

> Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <B92AC81E.1F163%zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk>, Peter Fairbrother
> <zenadsl6186@zen.co.uk> writes
>> I suspect, especially in light of the EU Parliament decision, that if the
>> Home Sec decides it's "proportionate to what is sought to be achieved" then
>> the warrant will be issued.
> 
> Notices (they are not warrants) are issued by investigating officers.
> 

But the Home Office wants to add itself to the list of people who can issue
notices, and then the Home Secretary can himself (or get someone else who is
an "investigating officer", a term I can't find in part 1 chapter 2, to)
issue one.

>> Who's to stop him anyway? Or even make public his action, if he and the PM
>> don't want it reported? There isn't any judicial review.
> 
> The long term oversight comes from the Interception Commissioner [NB -
> even though this is not interception in the normal sense].

Who can be required by the PM to not reveal anything the PM doesn't want
revealed, even to Parliament.

> 
> In the shorter term it comes from the evidence, from any notice issued
> during an investigation, being available to the defence when the case
> comes to court.

And if the source of the evidence is protected by (I don't know the exact
name for it, but a National Security exemption)?  Besides, it doesn't have
to be used in Court, they could use it for Watergate-type purposes. As for
the argument that the ISP's will report this, I doubt it - there is after
all an Official Secrets Act if nothing else.

-- Peter Fairbrother