**Why the UK needs to rethink the Investigatory Powers Act and allow intercept evidence in court**

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 (IPA 2016) has been in place for over a decade, but it is seriously out of date. The law provides the main framework for how the police, intelligence services, and courts access and use electronic evidence. With digital technology advancing at an incredible pace, the IPA 2016's provisions are no longer sufficient to meet the needs of modern investigations.

Today, digital evidence plays a crucial role in 90% of all crimes, from street incidents to those with more obvious high-tech components. The sheer volume of data generated by smartphones, social media, credit card purchases, and online activities has created new challenges for law enforcement agencies. Public systems such as ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition), CCTV (Closed-Circuit Television), and facial recognition add to the mix.

But despite these advancements, the IPA 2016 remains mired in ambiguity. The law distinguishes between admissible "communications data" – who called whom, when, and for how long – and inadmissible message content. However, with the advent of digital technologies, this distinction has become increasingly difficult to maintain.

Take, for example, the recent Operation Venetic case involving the EncroChat encrypted phone network. The French police used equipment interference techniques to hack into the system, collecting vast amounts of data on serious organized crime groups. However, the courts struggled to determine whether the collected data was admissible as evidence.

The problem lies in the law's treatment of "intercept" evidence – content acquired while it is being transmitted between devices. Under the IPA 2016, such evidence is deemed inadmissible. In contrast, stored data, even if obtained through hacking or equipment interference, is allowed into court as evidence.

The consequences of this distinction are far-reaching. Judges and lawyers must navigate complex definitions of "communications data" and "interception-related conduct." The Investigatory Powers Commissioner's Office (IPCO) has acknowledged the challenges in defining the boundaries between targeted equipment interference, interception of live-time communications, and digital forensics.

Many argue that it is time to rethink the IPA 2016 and allow intercept evidence into court. This would align with almost every other jurisdiction worldwide. However, critics raise concerns about transcription costs, storage costs, making proper disclosure while protecting innocent third-party privacy, and revealing methods of interception.

These arguments, however, are no longer valid in today's digital age. Transcription costs have plummeted due to advances in voice-to-text software. Storage costs are negligible with the advent of compact and affordable storage devices. AI techniques can assist with proper disclosure and protecting innocent third-party privacy. And specialized acquisition hardware and software ensure reliable capture and preservation of intercept data.

The UK's Home Office has a crucial role to play in revising the IPA 2016. The current home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, and her House of Lords colleague, David Hanson, have some grounding in the issues. It remains to be seen whether they will act on reforming the law to bring it into line with modern investigative needs.

Until then, judges, lawyers, and investigators will continue to grapple with the complexities of digital evidence under the IPA 2016. The time has come for a rethink – one that prioritizes clarity, consistency, and the integrity of the justice system in the digital age.