The Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s director of professional standards
(Mrs Susan Sharpe) and head of pharmacy law (Mr Stephen Lutener) will soon be
allowed to authorise directed covert surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act 2000.
An Order to give them this authority comes into effect on September 25.
The Act, which came into force in July, sets down a legal framework for the
interception of communications, surveillance in the course of authorised investigations
and related matters. The Society is included in a list of public authorities
which are allowed to authorise directed surveillance as part of investigations
to detect or prevent crime, or in the interests of public safety or public health,
among other purposes.
Under the Act, directed surveillance is defined as covert surveillance which
does not entail the presence of individuals or use of monitoring devices on
residential premises or in private vehicles. The surveillance must also be proportionate
and be carried out for the purposes of a specific investigation. Authorisations
have to given in writing, other than in urgent cases, and must specify the nature
of the surveillance, the circumstances in which it is to be carried out and
the nature of the investigation being undertaken. Oral authorisations expire
after 72 hours, unless renewed; written authorisations are valid for three months,
unless renewed.
Authorisation is necessary for investigations which might lead to either criminal
action or Statutory Committee proceedings.
Mr Lutener told The Journal on September 19 that the Act did not affect the
existing activities of the Society other than to lay down a legal framework
for certain aspects of its investigatory operations.
“If provision had not been made for the Society to undertake such surveillance,
it would have been unable to use covert directed surveillance to collect evidence
for its proceedings. We would have had to bring in the police or Medicines Control
Agency to do it for us.”
He added that directed covert surveillance was rarely used, having been necessary
in only one case dealt with by the courts in the past year.