Cops to provide data on warrants for electronic devices

THE police have agreed to respond to social activist and blogger Vishal Persad’s request for the number of warrants applied for under the Interception of Communications Act (IOCA).

Attorneys for the Commissioner of Police told Justice Marissa Robertson they received instructions to provide an access decision by February 26. The matter has been adjourned to March 6.

Persad filed his freedom of information request as part of a transparency initiative called "Project Privacy Watch", on June 9, 2024. His application seeks critical data on how often the police have sought court orders for communication interceptions and key disclosure orders (which compel individuals to provide passwords to electronic devices).

Persad argues that without access to this information, the public has no way to assess whether law enforcement is overstepping its bounds or engaging in surveillance without sufficient cause.

“It is crucial for citizens to be informed about how often law enforcement seeks such powers, as these actions directly affect privacy,” his attorneys Keron Ramkhalwhan, Anwar Hosein, Annessia Gunness and Shalini Sankar argued.

Persad’s lawsuit noted the failure of the Minister of National Security to submit the required annual reports under Section 24 of the IOCA, which, the claim contends, should provide oversight on the number of warrants issued, their duration, and any resulting prosecutions.

Persad's FOIA request specifically asks for the number of applications for interception warrants (2010-2024); the number of warrants granted during that period; and the number of key disclosure orders requested and granted.

He complained that despite requesting the information in June 2024 and sending a pre-action protocol letter on October 25, 2024, he has not received an access decision from the police.

Persad argues that law enforcement's ability to intercept private communications and demand passwords was an extraordinary power that requires strict oversight.

“These powers, by their very nature, are invasive and can lead to serious breaches of privacy. In the absence of transparency, there is a risk that they could be used arbitrarily or excessively.”

He contends that without transparency, these powers could be misused or overused to infringe on civil liberties.

His affidavit said, "Transparency allows the public and oversight bodies to monitor how often these powers are used, ensuring they are employed only when necessary and under appropriate circumstances."

His claim said the police’s failure to respond to information requests within 30 days was unlawful and in breach of his statutory duty

“Transparency allows the public and oversight bodies to monitor how often these powers are used, ensuring that they are being employed only when necessary and under appropriate circumstances.”