Part 9: Miscellaneous and general provisions Chapter 1: Miscellaneous Schedule 8: Combination of warrants
This Schedule allows for certain different warrants and authorisations to be applied for in combination with each other. It may be that a single operation or investigation will involve conduct that needs to be authorised under a number of different warrants or authorisations. This Schedule means that one application can be made covering all of the authorisations and warrants that are needed. This has the advantage of avoiding duplication. It also means that the person who has to take the decision to issue the warrant, and a Judicial Commissioner reviewing that decision, has sight of all of the conduct that is being authorised. However, the public authority applying for warrants and authorisations is not obliged to apply for them in combination with each other. Nothing in this Schedule prevents warrants and authorisations that are related to each other being applied for individually.
	Where warrants are applied for in combination, the resulting warrant is referred to as a "combined warrant". A combined warrant is a single warrant, though it may be made up of a number of other warrants and authorisations that would otherwise be issued individually.
	Part 1 of the Schedule explains the warrants and authorisations that may be issued in combination with a targeted interception warrant. It does this by first listing the combinations that can be issued by the Secretary of State (paragraphs 1 to 3) and then the combinations that can be issued by the Scottish Ministers (paragraphs 4 to 7). Part 2 of the Schedule repeats this, but for warrants and authorisations that can be issued in combination with a targeted equipment interference warrant. Part 2 is divided up into the combined warrants that can be issued by the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers and by the heads of law enforcement bodies. Part 3 of the Schedule provides for one further combined warrant: a combination of a targeted examination warrant issued under Part 2 of the Act with a targeted examination warrant issued under Part 5 of the Act.
	In some circumstances, the effect of Parts 1 to 3 will be that a person will be given the power to issue a combined warrant including an authorisation that the person would not normally be able to issue. This would occur, for example, if the National Crime Agency wanted a combined warrant made up of a targeted interception warrant and a targeted equipment interference warrant. The National Crime Agency would apply to the Secretary of State (or the Scottish Ministers) who may issue the combined warrant, even though they would not normally issue a targeted equipment interference warrant to the National Crime Agency. That is because the Director General of the National Crime Agency would normally issue such a warrant.
	Paragraph 19 provides that where one of the warrants or authorisations that can make up a combined warrant is referred to anywhere in legislation, that reference includes that type of warrant when it is part of a combined warrant.
	Paragraph 20 sets out that for certain matters, the rules that apply to a warrant will apply to the relevant part of a combined warrant. This includes, for example, the conditions that must exist before a warrant can be issued. Take the example of a combined warrant that is made up of a targeted interception warrant and an authorisation under section 93 of the Police Act 1997. The rules regarding when a targeted interception warrant can be issued will apply to the targeted interception warrant part of the combined warrant. The paragraph lists all the matters for which this principle applies.
	However, paragraphs 21 to 23 create an exception to paragraph 20. When a combined warrant including a targeted interception warrant is issued, the rules regarding the procedure for issuing a targeted interception warrant applies to the whole combined warrant. And likewise, when a combined warrant includes a targeted equipment interference warrant, the combined warrant will be issued using the procedure for a targeted equipment interference warrant. This means that the double-lock applies to the whole combined warrant. So, for example, a combined warrant made up of a targeted interception warrant and an authorisation for intrusive surveillance could only be issued with the approval of a Judicial Commissioner, even though such approval would not normally be needed for an authorisation for intrusive surveillance. The exception specified in paragraphs 21(3) and 22(3) is where part of the combined warrant includes a warrant issued under section 5 of ISA. Judicial Commissioner approval is not required for the part containing the section 5 warrant.
	Paragraph 24 provides that certain rules in the Police Act 1997 will not apply to an authorisation under section 93 of the Police Act 1997 when it is issued as part of a combined warrant. For example, section 96 of the Police Act 1997 requires authorisations to be notified to a Judicial Commissioner. But if the authorisation is part of a combined warrant, a Judicial Commissioner will be required to approve the issuing of the warrant, and the rule in section 96 of the Police Act 1997 is not needed.
	Paragraphs 25 and 26 are similar to paragraph 24, except they provide that certain rules in RIPA and RIPSA do not apply to authorisations for intrusive or directed surveillance when they are part of a combined warrant.
	Some of the warrants and authorisations that can be combined have different durations. The normal rule, which is set out in paragraph 27, is that the shortest of the durations will apply. So, where an authorisation lasting 3 months is combined with one that lasts 6 months, the combined warrant lasts 3 months. However, there is one exception to this. When one of the intelligence services is issued with a combined warrant including an authorisation for directed surveillance, the warrant can last 6 months.
	The effects of paragraphs 28 and 29 are that if a Judicial Commissioner refuses to approve the decision to issue a combined warrant that was issued urgently, the power for a Judicial Commissioner to determine what may be done with any material already obtained applies to the targeted interception or targeted equipment interference parts of the combined warrant.
	The effect of paragraph 30 is that the rules about the service of warrants and requiring people to provide assistance in order to give effect to a warrant that apply to warrants under Part 2 or Part 5 of the Act apply to the part of a combined warrant that is made up of those warrants. For example, where a combined warrant includes a targeted interception warrant, the part of the combined warrant that is a targeted interception warrant can be served in the same way as a targeted interception warrant that was issued individually.
	Section 56 provides that certain matters relating to interception warrants cannot be referred to or relied on in legal proceedings. The effect of paragraph 31 is that this rule applies to warrants under Part 2 of the Act that are issued as part of a combined warrant, but with one difference. The rules in section 56 mean that (subject to certain exceptions) it is not possible to reveal that a warrant under Part 2 was issued. The effect of paragraph 31 is that it will be possible to disclose the existence of a combined warrant, but only if doing so does not reveal that it included a warrant under Part 2. The effect of paragraph 32 is that one of the exceptions to the rules against disclosure, the ability to obtain legal advice, applies to advice about this Schedule.