KJF vs Surrey Police

This case concerned the legality of the police accessing data on a mobile phone that had been lawfully seized under a search warrant issued under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

TLDR:

• Police seized KJF's mobile phone under a PACE warrant.
• KJF argued that additional authorization under RIPA or IPA was required to access the phone's data.
• The Tribunal ruled that PACE alone authorized the police to access the data.
• The complaint was dismissed as the Tribunal had no jurisdiction over PACE powers.

The appellant, KJF, was involved in a dispute with Surrey Police regarding the legality of accessing data on his mobile phone, which had been seized under a search warrant issued under PACE. The investigation was related to the possible theft of funds raised for a charity by KJF's partner, a civilian employee of Surrey Police.

The Tribunal acknowledged that KJF's legitimate expectation of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights was engaged. The search warrant was executed on 20 November 2019, and KJF's mobile phone was seized. Despite multiple requests, KJF refused to reveal the PIN to unlock the phone.

Surrey Police attempted to access the phone's data through their Digital Forensics Team and external companies but were ultimately unsuccessful. KJF argued that additional authorization under RIPA or IPA was required to access the phone's data, and that failure to obtain such authorization could expose the police to criminal liability under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 or IPA.

The Tribunal considered the arguments and concluded that the PACE warrant authorized the police to access the phone's data without additional authorization under RIPA or IPA. The Tribunal determined that the powers under PACE were sufficient to justify the police's actions, whether the phone was connected to the telecommunications system or not.

The Tribunal emphasized that the seizure and interrogation of the phone were lawful under PACE, and any issues related to the lawfulness of the warrant or search were outside its jurisdiction. The Tribunal dismissed the complaint, stating that it had no jurisdiction over PACE powers.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that Surrey Police were entitled to access the phone's data under the PACE warrant, and the complaint was dismissed. This case provides important insights for criminal law practitioners regarding the interplay between PACE and RIPA/IPA in accessing data on seized electronic devices.

Legal representatives: Ms. Rosemary Davidson (Counsel to the Tribunal)

Judicial Panel: Lord Justice Edis, Professor Graham Zellick CBE KC, Mr. Desmond Browne CBE KC

Case Citation Reference: [2022] UKIP Trib 7