Police (2): Techniques of Investigation

  • Daniel Marshall
  • Terry Thomas


The techniques of investigation used by the police have had to keep pace with the complex and changing nature of communication. Technological advances, such as the internet, have meant that crime investigation has evolved significantly since the days of needing to be physically present to ‘eavesdrop’ on a suspected offender. As the Snowden files revealed, in the twenty-first century, ‘eavesdropping’ can be conducted remotely and from one country to another. The introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, allowing bulk data collection by the government, raises significant questions for the future of crime investigation and the safeguarding of individuals’ privacy.


  1. Anderson D (2015a) A Question of Trust: Report of the Investigatory Powers Review, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, London.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson D (2015b) Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures in 2014: Third Report of the Independent Reviewer on the Operation of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (available at accessed 2 February 2017).
  3. Andrew C (2009) The Defence of the Realm: The Authorized History of MI5, London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  4. BBC News (2008b) Spy Law ‘Used in Dog Fouling War’, 27 April (available at: accessed 6 December 2016).
  5. BBW (Big Brother Watch) (2010) The Grim RIPA: Cataloguing the Ways in Which Local Authorities Have Abused Their Covert Surveillance Powers (available from: accessed 6 December 2016).
  6. BBW (Big Brother Watch) (2014) Surveillance Transparency Is Now More Important than Ever, London: BBW.Google Scholar
  7. BBW (Big Brother Watch) (2016a) Safe in Police Hands? London (available at: accessed 9 November 2016).
  8. Bingham J (2008) Anti-Terror Powers Used to Spy on Paperboys. Daily Telegraph, 5 December.Google Scholar
  9. Birkett Report (1957) Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors Appointed to Inquire into the Interception of Communications, Cmnd. 283, October, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  10. Bonino S and Kaoullas L (2015) Preventing Political Violence in Britain: An Evaluation of over Forty Years of Undercover Policing of Political Groups Involved in Protest. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 38(10): 814–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Channel 4 News (2013) Stephen Lawrence Family ‘Targeted in Police Smear Campaign,’ 24 June (available at accessed 23 March 2017).
  12. Clark D (2007) Covert Surveillance and Informer Handling, in Newburn T, Williamson T and Wright A (eds.) Handbook of Criminal Investigation, Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  13. College of Policing (2016a) Covert Policing (available at: accessed 6 December 2016).
  14. Corera G (2015) Intercept: The Secret History of Computers and Spies, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
  15. Court of Justice of the European Union (2014) The Court of Justice Declares the Data Retention Directive to Be Invalid (Press Release) No. 54/14 Luxembourg, 8 April 2014.Google Scholar
  16. Creedon M (2013) Operation Herne: Report 1 Use of Covert Identities, Derbyshire Constabulary (available at: accessed 16 March 2017).
  17. Creedon M (2014a) Operation Herne: Operation Trinity Report 2 Allegations of Peter Francis, Derbyshire Constabulary (available at: accessed 16 March 2017).
  18. Creedon M (2014b) Operation Herne: Special Demonstration Squad Reporting: Mentions of Sensitive Campaigns, Derbyshire Constabulary (available at: accessed 16 March 2017).
  19. Diplock Report (1981) The Interception of Communications in Great Britain, Cmnd. 8191, March, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  20. DSOU (Don’t Spy on Us) (2016) Investigatory Powers Bill: How to Make It Fit-For-Purpose (available from:
  21. DSOU (Don’t Spy on Us) (2017) Web Site (available at: last accessed 16 March 2017).
  22. Ellison M (2014) The Stephen Lawrence Independent Review – Possible Corruption and the Role of Undercover Policing in the Stephen Lawrence Case, HC 1094, London: TSO.Google Scholar
  23. Ellison M and Morgan A (2015) Review of Possible Miscarriages of Justice: Impact of Undisclosed Undercover Police Activity on the Safety of Convictions, a Report to the Attorney General, July HC 291, London: TSO.Google Scholar
  24. Evans R and Lewis P (2011b) Activists Walk Free as Undercover Officer Prompts Collapse of Case. The Guardian, 10 January.Google Scholar
  25. Evans R and Lewis P (2013a) Undercover the True Story of Britain’s Secret Police, London: Faber and Faber Ltd.Google Scholar
  26. Evans R and Lewis P (2013b) Police Spy: ‘I Thought, How Would They Feel About Their Son’s Name Being Used’. The Guardian, 3 February.Google Scholar
  27. Evans R and Lewis P (2015) Scotland Yard Shut Down Undercover Police Unit Because It Broke Rules. The Guardian, 26 July.Google Scholar
  28. Evans R, Lewis P and Dodd V (2011) Revealed: Second Undercover Police Officer Who Posed as an Activist. The Guardian, 13 January.Google Scholar
  29. Halford A and Barnes T (1993) No Way Up the Greasy Pole: The Fight for Equality, London: Constable.Google Scholar
  30. Hirsch A (2011) Mark Kennedy and the Strange Case of Undercover Sex. The Guardian, 13 January.Google Scholar
  31. HMG (HM Government) (2010a) The Coalition: Our Programme for Government, May, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  32. HMIC (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary) (2012) A Review of National Police Units Which Provide Intelligence on Criminality Associated with Protest, February, London.Google Scholar
  33. HMIC (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary) (2013b) A Review of Progress Made Against the Recommendations in HMIC’s 2012 Report on the National Police Units Which Provide Intelligence on Criminality Associated with Protest, June, London.Google Scholar
  34. HMIC (HM Inspectorate of Constabulary) (2014) A Inspection of Undercover Policing in England and Wales, October, London.Google Scholar
  35. Home Office (1980) The Interception of Communications in Great Britain, Cmnd. 7873, April, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  36. Home Office (1984) Guidelines on the Use of Equipment in Police Surveillance Operations, London.Google Scholar
  37. Home Office (1985) The Interception of Communications in the United Kingdom, Cmnd. 9438, June, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  38. Home Office (1999b) Interception of Communications: A Consultation Paper, Cm 4368, June.Google Scholar
  39. Home Office (2000) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 – Explanatory Notes. Google Scholar
  40. Home Office (2014c) Covert Surveillance and Property Interference, Code of Practice, December, London: TSO.Google Scholar
  41. Home Office (2014d) Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, London: Guidance.Google Scholar
  42. Home Office (2014e) Covert Human Intelligence Sources – Code of Practice, December, London: TSO.Google Scholar
  43. Home Office (2015d) Home Secretary Announces Statutory Inquiry into Undercover Policing (Press Release) 12 March, London.Google Scholar
  44. Home Office (2016a) RIPA Codes (available at: accessed 16 March 2017).Google Scholar
  45. Home Office (2016b) Investigatory Powers Bill Receives Royal Assent (Press Release) 29 October, London.Google Scholar
  46. Home Office (2016c) Investigatory Powers Bill: Government Response to Pre-Legislative Scrutiny, Cm 9219, March, London.Google Scholar
  47. Hope C (2008) Local Authorities Launched 10,000 Snooping Operations Last Year. The Telegraph, 22 July.Google Scholar
  48. Hopkins N (2013) UK Gathering Secret Intelligence Via Covert NSA Operation. The Guardian, 7 June. Google Scholar
  49. Hopkins N and Watt N (2013) Prism: Ministers Challenged over GCHQ’s Access to Covert US Operation. The Guardian, 7 June.Google Scholar
  50. House of Commons (2015a) Privacy and Security: A Modern and Transparent Legal Framework Intelligence and Security Committee, HC 1075, March, London.Google Scholar
  51. House of Commons (2016a) Investigatory Powers Bill: Technology Issues Science and Technology Committee (3rd Report of Session 2015–16), HC 573, January, London.Google Scholar
  52. House of Lords/House of Commons (2012) Draft Communications Data Bill, Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill (Session 2012–13), HL Paper 79/HC 479, December, London.Google Scholar
  53. House of Lords/House of Commons (2016) Draft Investigatory Powers Bill – Report, Joint Committee on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill HL Paper 93/HC 651, February, London.Google Scholar
  54. James A (2013) Examining Intelligence-Led Policing: Developments in Research, Policy and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  55. Liberty (2015a) Intelligence Sharing Between UK and USA Was Unlawful, Tribunal Rules (Press Release) 6 February.Google Scholar
  56. Liberty (2016b) Liberty Responds to the Snoopers’ Charter Becoming Law After Receiving Royal Assent (Press Release) 29 November, London.Google Scholar
  57. Lyon D (2015) Surveillance After Snowden, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  58. MacAskill E, Borger J, Hopkins N, Davies N and Ball J (2013) GCHQ Taps Fibre-Optic Cables for Secret Access to World’s Communications. The Guardian, 21 June.Google Scholar
  59. McTague T (2016) Investigatory Powers Bill: Theresa May Accused of Rushing Snoopers’ Charter into Law to Avoid Scrutiny. Independent, 27 February.Google Scholar
  60. Milne S (2004) The Enemy Within: The Secret War Against the Miners, 3rd ed., London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  61. Morgan T (2015) Scotland Yard’s Multi-Million Pound Apology to Seven Women Deceived into Relationships with Officers. Daily Telegraph, 20 November.Google Scholar
  62. MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) (2015a) Special Demonstration Squad Tradecraft Manual, Freedom of Information Request, June (available at accessed 6 December 2016).
  63. MPS (Metropolitan Police Service) (2015b) Claimants in Civil Cases Receive MPS Apology (Press Release) 20 November.Google Scholar
  64. Porter B (1989) Plots and Paranoia: A History of Political Espionage in Britain 1790–1988, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Privacy International (2015) Bulk Personal Datasets Challenge (available from: last accessed 6 December 2016).
  66. Privy Council (2008) Review of Intercept as Evidence – Report to the Prime Minister and Home Secretary, 30 Jan, Cm 7324, London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  67. Robinson M (2013) Police Forces Pay £25million to Informants and Nearly Half Is Spent by London’s Met. Daily Mail, 18 June.Google Scholar
  68. RUSI (Royal United Services Institute) (2015) A Democratic Licence to Operate: Report of the Independent Surveillance Review, 13 July, London.Google Scholar
  69. Sharpe S (2002) Covert Surveillance and the Use of Informants, in McConville M and G Wilson (eds.) The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Spencer JR (1997) Bugging and Burglary by the Police. Cambridge Law Journal, 56(1): 6–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Taylor S (2015) Investigation into Links Between Special Demonstration Squad and Home Office, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  72. Travis A (2016) UK Security Agencies Unlawfully Collected Data for 17 Years, Court Rules. The Guardian, 17 October.Google Scholar
  73. UCPI (Undercover Policing Inquiry) (2016) Official Website (available at accessed 16 March 2017).
  74. Vincent D (1998) The Culture of Secrecy: Britain 1832–1998, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Vincent D (2016) Privacy: A Short History, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  76. Wynn Davies P (1997) Halford Triumphs over Workplace Phone Bugs. Independent, 25 June.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Marshall
    • 1
  • Terry Thomas
    • 2
  1. 1.School of LawLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK
  2. 2.School of Social SciencesLeeds Beckett UniversityLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations