44.
On some occasions the surveillance involved doing something more than
driving past the Properties. On one day (29 February 2008) the target vehicle
driven by Ms Paton with children as passengers was followed from Property 2
along 10 named roads to a school. On other occasions the surveillance was
conducted from a parked car in order to watch who was getting in or out of the
Complainants’ car. During the period of the surveillance the target vehicle was
only once identified as being in the location of Property 1. At all other times it
was located in the driveway of Property 2. No digital camera or recording
equipment of any kind was actually used in the surveillance.
45.
The Council education officer, who carried out the surveillance, stated in his
report that in his opinion “the family’s home address (defined in the
admissions booklet as the address at which he/she is ordinarily resident during
term time) is Property 2, and not Property 1”
E. Tribunal rulings on the determination of the complaints
46.
In making this determination the Tribunal exercised the jurisdiction, followed
the procedure and applied the statutory provisions in RIPA and the Rules.
I. Tribunal jurisdiction, procedure and role
47.
The parties were agreed (and the Tribunal confirmed) that there is jurisdiction
in the Tribunal to hear and determine the complaints. The effect of s 65 (2)
(b), (4), (5), (7) and (8) of RIPA is that the Tribunal is the appropriate forum
for the complaints, because the Complainants are aggrieved by conduct which
falls within Part II of RIPA (Surveillance). They believe the surveillance to
have taken place in relation to them “in challengeable circumstances”,
Page 13