the grant of authorisation for the carrying out of directed surveillance and of
the conduct falling within s65(5) which has been so engaged in.
II. Directed surveillance
51.
The Council accepts (and the Tribunal so rule) that the surveillance in this
case was “directed surveillance” within Part II s 26(2) RIPA. It was covert; it
was undertaken for the purposes of a specific investigation (i.e. into the
ordinary residence of the Complainants at the relevant date); and it was
undertaken in a manner likely to result in the obtaining of private information
about the Complainants.
III. Authorisation
52.
Directed surveillance within Part II RIPA is lawful for all purposes, if an
authorisation under Part II confers an entitlement to engage in that conduct on
the person whose conduct it is and his conduct is in accordance with the
authorisation: s27(1) of RIPA.
53.
In the case of the Council the person designated with power to grant
authorisations for the carrying out of directed surveillance was the Assistant
Chief Officer, Assistant Head of Service, Service Manager or equivalent:
Schedule1 Part 1, as inserted by Article 2 of the 2003 Regulation of
Investigatory Powers (Directed Surveillance and Covert Human Intelligence
Sources) Order.
54.
An authorisation for the carrying out of directed surveillance under Part II
shall not be granted unless the person granting it believes (a) that the
authorisation is necessary on specified grounds (in this case “for the purpose
Page 15