A special select committee of Parliament which reviewed the controversial Interception of Communications Act has objected to the police tapping telephones without Supreme Court approval, but has suggested that it be allowed in special circumstances on condition that it is confirmed by the Supreme Court within seven days.

The committee, in its report tabled in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, said "it was not desirable for authorised officers to have unlimited power to intercept the communications of a number of persons without obtaining prior authorisation from the Supreme Court".

".On the other hand, we agreed that they should be able to modify a warrant so as to carry out interception in respect of a person who is an associate of the subject of that warrant and is believed to be involved in the same prohibited activity," said the committee in its report.

".Even so, we were fully persuaded that any such modification should have the early intervention of the court," it added.

The committee recommended that the draft bill be amended so as to require that all modifications made to a warrant by an authorised officer be submitted to the Supreme Court for confirmation as soon as is reasonably practicable and not later than seven days after the date of modification.

The committee noted that the definition of "modification" in the Bill includes the addition of numbers (and) enables the authorised officer, in the context of the proposed definition of the term "person", to make changes allowing the interception of telephone numbers assigned to persons whose names do not appear on the warrant.

It also proposed an expansion of the list of offences which can trigger wiretapping to include terrorism offences as defined by the Terrorism Prevention Act, 2005:

. sale or trafficking of children;

. activities that are contrary to the offences Against the Person Act such as forcible abduction,
procuring defilement by threats or fraud or administering drugs and child stealing; and

. aiding and abetting or conspiring to commit any of the scheduled offences.

The bill has been in gestation since 2001 when it was introduced by the government in the aftermath of the allegations of illegal wiretapping of the telephones of government ministers and senior police officers in 2000.

The government subsequently decided to remove the authorisation for such activities from the cabinet to the judiciary.

The committee comprised Minister of National Security Dr Peter Phillips; Minister of Development Dr Paul Robertson; and Dr Karl Blythe from the government's side. MPs Derrick Smith and Delroy Chuck represented the Opposition.

The current bill seeks to:

. provide a convenient and speedy procedure for adding and deleting addresses;

. put the obligation on the providers of telecommunication services to assume the cost of establishing and maintaining the capacity to intercept communications pursuant to a warrant; and

. empower the minister of national security to make regulations prescribing minimum requirements for securing compliance with the Act and providing for the apportionment and recovery of the costs of such compliance, or of providing information, facilities or technical assistance.

The bill said that under current provisions of the Act, a warrant authorises the interception of only those addresses specified. Where a person changes his telephone number subsequent to a warrant being issued, a new application has to be made to a judge in chambers for another warrant to intercept calls made on that number.

-balfordh@jamaicaobserver.com

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World