Organised Crime: Police and Intelligence Service’s ‘Powerful Weapon’ Unused

The law that legalises the interception of telephone conversations so that they can be submitted to court as evidence has remained inactive since 2020.

Header Image

 

The surge in organised crime and public demand for immediate deterrent measures – so the country does not turn into the ‘Wild West’ following recent gunfire and swinging axes on a central avenue in Larnaca – are putting strong pressure on the Justice Ministry to swiftly finalise a revised bill that will pave the way for lawful phone tapping.

The controversial law was passed six years ago with the aim of combating organised crime, corruption rings, match-fixing and other serious criminal offences. However, to this day, neither the Police nor the Cyprus Intelligence Service (KYP) have made use of this “powerful weapon” granted to them by Parliament, as procedural and legal issues emerged at the eleventh hour before its implementation. In order to completely eliminate the risk of surveillance warrants being annulled at a later stage by the courts – which would lead to the collapse of criminal cases – it was deemed necessary to amend the existing legislation before putting it into effect. To this end, according to reliable information, several meetings were held at the Law Office with the participation of KYP and the Police, in order to introduce all necessary amendments that would make the law functional and effective. Nevertheless, significant delays are being observed in completing the process.

Why it is considered a “powerful weapon”

The law in question is considered particularly important because audio material obtained from the interception of mobile and landline phones of individuals suspected of committing serious criminal offences would be used as evidence in court.

Specifically, recorded conversations could be used both for issuing arrest warrants and in criminal prosecutions. The recordings would be submitted as exhibits in court and taken into account when evaluating evidence during the trial of criminal cases. Based on this audio material, arrests would be made and indictments filed, making the law a particularly effective tool in the hands of law enforcement authorities.

Why six years were lost

The legislation is titled The Protection of the Confidentiality of Private Communications (Interception of Communications and Access to Recorded Content of Private Communications) (Amending) Law and entered into force on February 21, 2020, with its publication in the Official Gazette of the Republic. Parliament’s decision was not taken lightly. The bill was submitted in 2017 and discussed in the House Legal Affairs Committee for three years. During the discussions, parties and MPs expressed strong concerns about the risk of violating privacy. Eventually, objections were overcome when safeguards preventing arbitrariness and abuse were incorporated into the bill.

It took almost four years after the law’s adoption for mobile and landline providers – CYTA, Cablenet, Epic and Primetel – to procure the necessary technical equipment and resolve technical issues that arose. The aim was to allow the Police and KYP to seamlessly connect their equipment to providers’ networks and receive, in real time, the content of phone conversations of persons under surveillance. And while everything was ready for the launch of the first lawful phone interceptions, in November 2024 reservations were expressed regarding the procedure for issuing surveillance warrants. As a result, it was decided to prepare an amending bill, which, it should be noted, has still not been submitted to Parliament.

For specific offences

Telephone interceptions will be carried out following the issuance of court warrants and will be permitted exclusively for reasons of security of the Republic or for the prevention, investigation or prosecution of the following serious criminal offences: premeditated murder, manslaughter, corruption, terrorism, espionage, trafficking in persons and drugs, child pornography and money laundering.

With court orders

Interceptions will be carried out, following a court order, by authorised members of the Police and KYP.

The procedure will be as follows: the Attorney General, following a written request by the Chief of Police or the Director of KYP, will apply for a court order for the interception of private communications, if deemed necessary for the investigation of the above offences. The application will be accompanied by a sworn affidavit and a statement of facts detailing the offences that justify the issuance of the relevant court order.

The law requires the Attorney General, within a reasonable period not exceeding 90 days after the completion of the interception, to notify the affected person, if known and present in the Republic, informing them of the period during which they were under surveillance and the reasons for which it was ordered.

Incorrect information

The Minister of Justice, Costas Fytiris, in statements last Saturday following the bloody incident involving gunfire, axes and iron bars on Grigori Afxentiou Avenue in Larnaca – linked to the “protection” of nightclubs – called on Parliament to give the Police the “weapons” it needs to combat organised crime. However, the minister’s statement does not reflect reality.

As confirmed yesterday in statements to Politis radio (107.6 and 97.6) on the programme Proini Epitheorisi by MPs and members of the House Legal Affairs Committee, Andreas Pasiourtidis (AKEL) and Panikos Leonidou (DIKO), there are no bills pending before Parliament concerning police operations or criminality issues.

Mr Fytiris was apparently referring to the revised bill on lawful phone interceptions, which has not yet been submitted to Parliament for approval, as it is still pending before the Law Office for legal vetting.

 

This article was originally published in Greek by Politis.  

 

Comments Posting Policy

The owners of the website www.politis.com.cy reserve the right to remove reader comments that are defamatory and/or offensive, or comments that could be interpreted as inciting hate/racism or that violate any other legislation. The authors of these comments are personally responsible for their publication. If a reader/commenter whose comment is removed believes that they have evidence proving the accuracy of its content, they can send it to the website address for review. We encourage our readers to report/flag comments that they believe violate the above rules. Comments that contain URLs/links to any site are not published automatically.