Covert investigative methods include monitoring correspondence and parcels, wiretapping and recording phone calls or other information transferred over telecommunication networks.
To prepare the analysis, the HFHR has requested public information disclosure from all circuit courts, military circuit courts and a majority of agencies authorised to apply for judicial authorisation for using covert investigative methods.
“The data we have obtained show in principle that in an overwhelming majority of cases circuit courts and military circuit courts admit motions for an authorisation to use covert investigative methods”, says Artur Pietryka, author of the analysis.
For example, in 2012 the Circuit Court in Warsaw authorised 98.8% of applications submitted by the Head of the Internal Security Agency, ABW, (420 out of 425 applications were admitted) and all the 180 applications filed by the Head of the Central Anti-corruption Bureau, CBA. Interestingly, the same court never dismissed an application to authorise covert investigative methods filed by the General Inspector of Treasury Control and issued 125 orders in the period between 1 October 2003 and 31 October 2012.
The analysis also revealed certain critical points marking periods when individual agencies used covert investigative methods particularly frequently. For instance, the ABW and CBA used the methods the most frequently in 2007 while the number of cases investigated with the use of covert investigative methods have been incrementally decreasing ever since.
The analysis presented to the Tribunal attempted to identify causes of the changing trends in applying covert investigative methods. The document also named deficiencies in the system of judicial review of covert investigative methods. According to the author of the analysis, the universal judicial approval of covert investigative methods results from the fact that increasingly more crimes may be investigated with the use of such methods. Other identified causes include defects of the relevant judicial procedures, and insufficient time devoted to examine an application.
“It’s equally possible that judges who hear applications for authorising covert investigative methods act under time constraints, especially in cases of the urgent need to use covert investigative methods”, adds Mr Pietryka.
