Another important legality that requires compliance is the process, which resulted from a court case known as R v Johnson. In this case, defendants sought disclosure of the location of a covert observation post through which evidence of criminal activity had been obtained. In that case it was decided that disclosure would NOT take place, but the court made recommendations as to what procedures ought to take place prior to an observation post being authorised. These have since become the established norm, and effectively, therefore, a legal requirement.

The reasoning for keeping the location of a covert observation post secret is obvious - if the location becomes known during the operation the investigation is wasted, and if it is identified afterwards, the actual occupants of the premises are open to threats from those who were being watched.

The process is as follows:

• A police officer of sergeant rank or above will visit the premises to be used for observation purposes, and seek the permission and views of the occupants regarding disclosure of the identity of the premises in open court.
• The usual reasons for non-disclosure will be local criminality, community problems, and so on. If the decision is made to use the premises, the observations go ahead and the routine evidence gathering takes place.
• Should a prosecution then follow, an officer of Chief Inspector rank or above visits the occupants and again seeks their views as before. If they remain the same and non-disclosure is sought, a statement is taken regarding the views, but it is the Chief Inspector who gives evidence in open court as to the content of that statement. If the court orders disclosure, a decision can be made as to whether or not the prosecution should continue.

Page: 5