criteria for the grant of authorisation for directed surveillance are satisfied. It
is not apparent from the authorisation or from the Council’s evidence that such
consideration was given to the case of each Complainant. If proper
consideration had been given to the situation of each individual target of the
surveillance it might well be that authorisation would never have been granted
for any of the children and the surveillance of them would never have taken
place. None of the children were believed to have committed or were
threatening to commit any crime or disorder.
59.
Fourthly, it is agreed that the relevant date at which to determine “ordinary
residence” was 11 January 2008, not the 8 February 2008 when the application
for authorisation was made and granted. The relevant date had passed before
the authorisation was given. Proper consideration was not given to the fact that
what had to be determined by the surveillance was ordinary residence at the
historic date of 11 January rather than during the period of the surveillance. If
proper consideration had been given to that fact alone and the proper question
had been addressed, the application for authorisation might never have been
granted and the surveillance might never have taken place.
IV. Permissible purpose
60.
The first question relating to authorisation of the directed surveillance of the
Complainants is: for what purpose was the authorisation sought and granted
for directed surveillance of the Complainants?
61.
The Council contends that the authorisation of directed surveillance of the
Complainants was “for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime” and that
the possibility of an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 was considered before
Page 17