meaning that it took place with the purported authority of the authorisation
under Part II of RIPA granted on 8 February 2008.
48.
The parties were agreed (and the Tribunal directed) that there should be an
inter partes public hearing of the complaints. There was no risk of disclosure
of information prejudicial to national security or contrary to protected aspects
of the public interest. It was not considered necessary to hear any oral
evidence from the Complainants or from the Council in order to find the
relevant facts or to determine the complaints.
49.
In exercising their jurisdiction the duty of the Tribunal, as the appropriate
forum, was to investigate whether the Council had engaged, in relation to the
Complainants, in any conduct falling within section 65(5)(d) (“conduct to
which Part II applies”); to investigate the authority (if any) for the directed
surveillance carried out by the Council; to consider whether the circumstances
were such that (whether or not there was such authority) it would not have
been appropriate for the conduct to take place without it, or at least without
proper consideration having been given to whether such authority should be
sought; and, in the light of their findings of fact, to determine the complaints
by applying the same principles as would be applied by a court on an
application for judicial review: s 65 (7) and s 67(3) RIPA.
50.
The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is not by way of an appeal from the decision
to grant an authorisation for the carrying out of directed surveillance, or from
the decision to carry it out. Nor is it a re-determination of the application for
authorisation. The investigation is into the circumstances and the lawfulness of
Page 14