Minutes:
In accordance with Procedure Rule 11 (General Questions from Members of the Panel), the following questions were put with responses from the Police and Crime Commissioner:
Councillor Joe Otten put the following question:
“What costs have been incurred as a result of the decisions to suspend and then remove the chief constable: a) salaries of replacement/interim/acting chief constables, b) recruitment costs c) legal, d) other?”
The Police and Crime Commissioner responded to indicate that the following costs had been incurred:
· Salaries of Interim Chief Constables: The costs amount to £78k.
· Recruitment costs of Interim Chief: These are nil.
· Legal costs: The costs incurred by the PCC amount to £43k although the final position is still to be determined.
· Other costs: Nil
As a supplementary question, Councillor Otten queried whether the Commissioner considered the costs to be proportionate given the imminent retirement of the Chief Constable.
In response, the Police and Crime Commissioner indicated that the process in respect of the Chief Constable had been long and drawn out, which went some way to explain the costs incurred, but considered them to be totally proportionate. He added that it would appropriate to make representations to government in respect of the process following the conclusion of proceedings.
Councillor Otten asked another question:
“Did you approve the reported £144,000 spend on an IMSI catcher - i.e. a spoof cellphone mast which enables mass surveillance of cellphones within the geographic reach of the device?”
In response, the Police and Crime Commissioner explained thatthis was a matter that concerned operational policing. The guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) was to neither confirm or deny any use of any covert activity as it would serve to undermine its operational use. In respect of operational necessity and NPCC guidance, the Commissioner was therefore unable to confirm or deny the approval or purchase of such technology.
Councillor Otten asked a further question:
“Are you satisfied that there is sufficient judicial oversight of the use of an IMSI catcher to ensure that the reasonable expectation of privacy of innocent citizens is not infringed?”
In response, the Commissioner indicated that he was satisfied that the relevant judicial oversight, provided by the Office of the Surveillance Commissioners (OSC), was sufficiently intrusive and robust to ensure the conduct of any relevant police operations is fully in compliance with all legal requirements, including Human Rights Act 1998, and was conducted with the highest standards of professionalism and integrity. He explained that the OSC was led by the ‘Chief Surveillance Commissioner’ Lord Judge with the assistance of 8 Surveillance Commissioners, who were appointed by the Prime Minister, report their independent inspection of all authorising public bodies annually. The Commissioner took satisfaction that over the last three years South Yorkshire Police had received an outstanding grading in the inspection of this area of policing.
Councillor Otten asked a further question:
“What operational safeguards are in place to ensure that the calls, data and texts of unintended targets of surveillance are not inadvertently or capriciously intercepted?”
In response, the Commissioner indicated that he must correct the implication in the question that the technology referred to involved interception of personal communications between individuals, which was misconceived and inaccurate. It was his understanding that, where such technology was deployed operationally, there was no interception of communications involved. With regard to safeguards, he was reassured that any deployment of such covert technology, where it existed, was subject to independent consideration of the relevant Force Authorising Officer (Detective Superintendent) and authorisation by the Chief Constable under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Police Act 1997. Such covert tactics could not be undertaken by the Police, without the official ‘Notification’ of a Surveillance Commissioner (OSC) approving the legality and compliance with all relevant aspects of the Human Rights Act 1998. Additionally, the Commissioner indicated that the OSC could rescind and quash such an authority if it was not satisfied that such proposed activity was necessary, proportionate and had sufficient regard to the risk of collateral intrusion. Finally, any such deployment was frequently reviewed to ensure it remained necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim.
As a supplementary question, Councillor Otten queried how the safeguards did justice to the extreme power available to the police through such technology. In response, the Commissioner reiterated that the technology was a tool to assist the police in extremely sensitive and serious matters and that his original answer had set out what the safeguards were in respect of the operation of the technology by South Yorkshire Police. He again confirmed that he was satisfied by the safeguards in place.