Page 156 - Deception at work all chapters EBook

Planning Investigations and Legal Background for Tough Interviews 157

• requires all UK legislation, whenever enacted, to be interpreted by both the civil and crimi-
nal courts in a way which is compatible with convention rights.

Thus it remains to be seen whether there will be any long-term, major impact on well-es-
tablished laws and precedents in the fraud area. So far it has been containable and relatively
sensible, except in employment tribunals where the smelly socks seem to have lost the plot.

The bottom line of proportionality
The common theme in both the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 is that the action
taken to investigate crime must be proportionate to its seriousness. This is a sensible yardstick
and one which should be addressed by all potential victims as a matter of policy and in inves-
tigatory procedures (see page [xref]). Other than this, commercial victims of fraud need not
be too worried about human rights legislation.

REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000(RIPA)

Background and coverage

This Act was passed so that the UK would conform to the European Convention on Human
Rights, primarily in the area of communications interception by public authorities on private
networks and to make cases such as Allison Halford’s ‘lawful’. But like kids confronted with
a cookie jar, English politicians and Mandarins could not resist the urge to take matters a few
steps further and the Act was extended.

The introduction states ‘The main purpose of the act is to ensure that the relevant investi-
gatory powers are used in accordance with human rights’ and ‘to create a new regime for the
interception of communications … it goes beyond what is strictly required for human rights
purposes and provides also for the changed nature of the communications industry since
1985’. RIPA repealed the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

There are six things to be noted about RIPA:

• it is one of the worst drafted convoluted acts in the history of convoluted acts;
• it is primarily directed at ‘public authorities’ and intrusions into the private lives of citi-

zens;
• it is based on a vertical interpretation of human rights legislation (see page[xref]);
• it creates masses of confusion and exceptions;
• there were no transitional arrangements;
• it adds unnecessary, and arguably insecure, bureaucracy to the investigatory process with

the creation of quangos and jobs for the boys
.
However, the act does not remove (at least yet) most of the investigatory powers needed by
businesses to detect, investigate and recover from fraud. But victims do have to understand
the fine print and have procedures in place to avoid violations of both the criminal and civil
law. This is the key.
The coverage of the act can be summarized as in Table 5.4.