Author: Adrian Ramdat (Director of Training & Consultancy)
March 2026
The case of Chatwani and Others v National Crime Agency is not new, yet when I deliver training, most attendees haven´t heard of it.
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that they haven´t heard of it but it is significant, because it offers one of the clearest examples of how even well-intentioned covert operations can unravel when legal safeguards and procedural integrity are not properly applied.
For applicants, authorising officers, and operational practitioners, the Chatwani case remains a vital case study on the duty of candour, risk assessment, and how prior approval processes are scrutinised in practice.
It also prominently uses the phrase “lawfully audacious” and serves as a perfect illustration of why I (and you should too) always probe a little deeper whenever that term is used.
Context of the Investigation
The investigation focused on a business suspected of laundering large sums of money through legitimate corporate channels. The National Crime Agency (NCA) believed members of the Chatwani and Tailor families were part of an organised crime network, moving criminal proceeds through company accounts and property deals. To obtain evidence, NCA Staff sought authorisation for property interference and covert surveillance at the company’s headquarters in South Ruislip.
The operational plan was ambitious. Alongside the covert installation, officers intended to arrest and interview key suspects, expecting their post-release conversations to reveal valuable intelligence, or evidence, when captured by the listening devices.
Within the NCA, the approach was described as “lawfully audacious”, a sign that it was testing the limits of what was legally and procedurally safe. It was that ambition, and the way the operation was authorised, that later drew the attention of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
What Went Wrong
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) later identified several key failings:
Duty of Candour Breached – The application did not disclose that the main purpose of the arrests and interviews was to observe the suspects’ behaviour and conversations after release. Internal correspondence confirmed that “legal topics will be at the forefront of conversations,” showing that officers expected legally privileged discussions to occur. However, this information was omitted from the authorisation request. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal (IPT) stressed that applicants must provide all relevant details to the authorising officer and, where applicable, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO), including any facts that might weaken the case for authorisation.
Risk of Acquiring Privileged Material Misjudged – Despite acknowledging the likelihood of legal discussions, the relevant section on the application and authorisations forms were left blank. In practice, significant quantities of legally privileged material were obtained. The IPT made clear that risks involving privileged or confidential information must be assessed and mitigated case by case, not dismissed through policy shortcuts or assumptions and no boxes on these forms can be left blank.
Incomplete Risk Assessment and Over-Reliance on Templates – Standard forms were used with minimal case-specific analysis. Predictable risks, particularly the acquisition of privileged material, were not properly considered or documented.
In my experience, staff often miss the consideration of acquiring confidential material when completing applications or authorisations for covert activities and don´t really appreciate what can constitute material that might weaken the case for the authorisation.
Operational Ambition Over Legal Safeguards – The operation was described internally as “lawfully audacious.” I firmly believe that law enforcement should use their full range of powers and use both new and emerging techniques to full advantage but personally However, I find that the term ´lawfully audacious´ often signals attempts to push operational boundaries by being ´audacious´ without sufficient consideration of the ´lawfully´ part of that phrase.
What concerns me most is that the phrase can act as a linguistic comfort blanket: it frames risk-taking as bold but justified, even when the foundations for that justification haven’t been properly tested. When people use “lawfully audacious,” they often emphasise the audacity and quietly assume the lawfulness, rather than proving it through thorough analysis. In my experience, once that mindset creeps in, teams can start to rationalise gaps, soften risk assessments, or convince themselves that legal safeguards are obstacles rather than essential protections. That´s why the term always makes me take a closer look.
Loss of Obtained Product - The High Court subsequently quashed the warrants and ordered all material to be returned or destroyed, effectively undoing months of investigative work. This isn´t the only case where product has been lost and the application, authorisation and management of the product can often be one of the first areas looked at by defence lawyers. (We are running a webinar on the 2nd July 2026 about the management of product as it is an area of vulnerability).
Why the Case Went Wrong
Duty of Candour Ignored – Authorising officers and judicial authorities cannot make lawful decisions when critical facts are withheld. The IPT found that omitting the true operational purpose and foreseeable risks amounted to material non-disclosure.
Weak Procedural Culture – Over-reliance on standard templates, assumptions, and procedural shortcuts led to poor-quality applications and insufficient risk evaluation. As I tell people in the training that I deliver in this arena, if you are writing an application or authorisation don’t use words or phrases if you don´t know exactly why you are writing them and what they mean.
Overconfidence in Creativity – The description “lawfully audacious” reflected an operational culture that valued tactical ingenuity over legal compliance with the tests of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness.
Lessons for Operational Staff
From the IPT’s findings and broader experience in covert policing, several lessons stand out:
- Always Honour the Duty of Candour – Disclose all facts that could influence the decision-maker, even those that might appear unhelpful to the application.
- Be Transparent About Operational Purpose – Concealing or reframing the true objective undermines the lawfulness of authorisations and endangers the integrity of investigations.
- Assess Risks Individually – Avoid generic templates. Evaluate each risk, including the likelihood of capturing privileged or confidential material and record mitigation measures clearly.
- Ensure Oversight Can Function – Oversight bodies such as authorising officers and IPCO rely entirely on the accuracy and completeness of the information provided.
- Respect Legal Limits in Innovation – Tactical creativity must operate within legal boundaries. “Lawfully audacious” should never mean “legally uncertain.”
- Procedural Integrity Protects Operations – Poorly constructed authorisations can collapse entire cases, regardless of operational success.
- Invest in Training – Applicants and authorising officers must understand the legal framework, apply the tests correctly, and recognise their continuing obligations. If you are an applicant or authorising officer, you really need to understand your role and how to complete the relevant forms.
Conclusion
The Chatwani case demonstrates that achieving a legitimate operational objective is not enough. How an operation is conducted is just as important as why it is undertaken.
Adherence to the duty of candour, full and accurate disclosure, and rigorous risk assessment are not bureaucratic hurdles, they are essential safeguards that protect both the investigation and those who conduct it.
Operational ambition and innovation must always be balanced with procedural and legal integrity. Even in the most covert environments, authorisation processes must withstand the closest scrutiny from the authorising officer, from IPCO, and, if necessary, from the courts or Investigatory Powers Tribunal.
The Chatwani case reinforces one thing: covert work fails when training falls behind.
We deliver initial training for new applicants and authorising officers, refresher training to keep knowledge and skills current, plus our highly rated Bitesized RIPA/RIPSA/RIPL sessions for focused, practical updates.
Contact us at info@thesignaturebrand.co.uk to see how we can support your team or for details of our forthcoming RIPA/RIPSA/RIPL webinars throughout 2026.