of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder”) and (b) the
authorised surveillance is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by
carrying it out: s 28(1) and (3) (b) of RIPA.
55.
Before dealing specifically and separately with each of the cumulative criteria
for the grant of an authorisation (i.e. permissible purpose, necessity and
proportionality) four features of the authorisation granted on 8 February 2008
are noted. Those four features are relevant to whether, as the Complainants
contend, the authorisation was granted on the wrong basis and on an erroneous
view of the facts to be determined by the surveillance; whether proper
consideration was given to the criteria to be applied in a decision to grant an
authorisation; and to whether the authorisation or the circumstances were such
that it would not have been appropriate for the surveillance to take place
without authority.
56.
First, the application for the authorisation asserted as a fact that the
information and documentation supplied to the Council was “fraudulent.” The
purpose of the surveillance was to discover whether or not that was the fact.
57.
Secondly, at two points in the authorisation reference is made to the
“permanent” home address or residence of C5. “Ordinary residence” is the
correct test to be applied by the Council for schools admissions. “Permanent
home” and “ordinary residence” are not the same. The former is not the
correct test of eligibility for admission to the preferred school.
58.
Thirdly, unusually the authorisation was for the surveillance of an entire
family, including three young children. Each individual, whether adult or
minor, is entitled to Article 8 rights and to separate consideration whether the
Page 16