Plan for Conducting Investigations

A plan to conduct investigations to obtain any possible pieces of evidence against Mr. Zdravko and MacGregor and to trace and arrest individuals involved in the crime. Covert intrusive surveillance will be used. Also, the investigation must be by the law to not compromise the Human Rights of Mr. Zdravko and MacGregor.

Potential Criminal Offenses

  1. Both Mr. Zdravko and MacGregor will be subjected to the illegal access of various computer networks or websites[1].
  2. Both Mr. Zdravko and MacGregor will be subjected to human trafficking[2] with given sentence of 14 years incarceration and fraud with given sentence of 10 years in prison[3].

Methods to Counter Crime

  1. Communication Interception
  • Authorization for communication interception is legal following the RIPA[4]. This will allow us to collect information through phone call records and mobile internet usage via their mobile networks. This may give information regarding the internal sabotage of Mr. Zdravko with the Bennington family or evidence of association of Mr. MacGregor and Mr. Zdravko. Also, their Internet Service Provider (ISP) can provide us their web history and communications among the connected persons.
  1. Intrusive Covert Surveillance
  • The best surveillance method, in this case, is intrusive covert The authority is granted to us by our chief officer[5]. This method gathers information secretly and more efficiently than direct surveillance. This method allows us to install devices such as video cameras to detect and prevent Mr. Zdravko and Mr. MacGregor from doing their unlawful business.
  1. Property Interference

–     In most cases, the “owner” will not allow us to put the device.   However, the law validates us to put the device[6].

Search Warrant

Through the significant investigations, a search warrant will be issued to the police officers to enter the premises of the suspect to search for any possible evidence such as documents, items, or even additional information that can be used against the suspects[7]. The authority to conduct the search warrant is granted by the law[8].

Measures to Consider

  • The crime must be proven serious accompanied with substantial evidence to begin the crime investigation. Also, in any cases, it must be by the law. Otherwise, the evidence or any proofs will be judged as unfair and will not be recognized as truth[9].
  • The surveillance team must monitor the suspects, without being noticed.
  • The warrant must also include all the possible requirements to do such operation to refrain the suspects to refuse the said operation. Also, their home place must be searched to make sure that the above evidence was not stored in their homes along with their unwittingly elder parents.

Human Rights

  • The communication interception and property interference cross-lined the privacy contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, these acts are permissible whenever it is related to national security[10]. In this case, Mr. Zdravko and Mr. MacGregor are suspected of committing serious crimes. Thus, these interferences are allowed under national security and are significantly proportionate.

Executive Summary

  • Illegal activities that are suspected of committing a serious crime, surveillance and interception of communication are advised to be done first in gathering evidence. Association, phone call records, exchange of emails, and other activities could be traced without alerting the suspects. Although interferences are against the law, it is permissible with proper authorizations that are also by the law.










Computer Misuse Act 1990.

European Convention of Human Rights 1950.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000.

Sexual Offences Act 2003.




[1] The offences are related to the use of restricted computer networks without lawful permission and for the commission of other indictable offences, as per the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) 1990, ss. 1-2.

[2] Sexual Offences Act 2000, ss.57-59A

[3] Fraud Act 2006, s.1 (3),

[4] Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000, s.1 (1).

[5] A senior authorising officer or the Secretary of State may only grant the authorisation

[6] Authorisation is lawful if the surveillance is necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime: RIPA s.32 (3)(b).

[7] Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, s.8.

[8] PACE s.8(3)

[9] PACE s.78

[10] ECHR, Article 8(2)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s