IPCO inspections of informant policies
Daniel Morgan Panel · The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · Issued 15 June 2021 · Addressed to: Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office
Source — verbatim from the inquiry
●Inquiry recommendation, Volume 1
The Panel is concerned that the policies and procedures relating to the use of informants by law enforcement agencies still allow scope for corrupt practices, and it recommends that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner takes this into consideration during inspections.
Daniel Morgan Panel, The Report of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel · 15 Jun 2021 Source PDF →
Response — verbatim from government
●Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office
The Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) independently oversees the use of these powers and conducts annual inspections to ensure compliance by law enforcement agencies. Experienced inspectors will also carry out further ad hoc inspections as required, should particular concerns arise, and overall findings are reported publicly in IPCO's Annual Report. Handling the risks associated with the use of CHIS is a key focus for IPCO. Inspections include interviews with those in handler and controller roles and detailed scrutiny of the paperwork around the authorisation and management of CHIS, to ensure that risks are properly understood and mitigated by individual agencies. The new Code of Practice on CHIS was published on 13 December 2022 and the relevant guidance and manuals are currently being updated accordingly.
Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office · 22 Jun 2023 Written response →
Evidence trail — what's actually happened since
- 13 Dec 2022 · IPCO The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 provided a new statutory framework. A new Code of Practice for CHIS was published 13 December 2022. IPCO confirmed that handling risks associated with CHIS use is a 'key focus' of its annual inspections of law enforcement agencies. View source → Confirmed Completed
Each entry above links to a primary source — gov.uk written statement, consultation response document, or inspection report. The Index does not characterise government intent; it tracks what has been published.
How this page is built
Source and Response are verbatim from primary documents. The Evidence trail records published activity since — written statements, consultation outcomes, inspection findings, parliamentary references. The Index does not paraphrase or characterise intent; it tracks what has been published. Where the evidence is the absence of action (a missed deadline, a slipped timetable), that absence is documented from primary sources rather than inferred.
This recommendation's data is verified periodically against primary sources. The Index is monitored for staleness weekly.