the authorisation was granted. It was argued at the hearing that s2 of the Fraud
Act 2006, read with ss1 and 5, was capable of covering the case of giving false
information to the Council to secure a school place. The Tribunal do not
consider that it is necessary or appropriate for them to reach a concluded view
on the scope of that provision, or on its application to the circumstances of this
case or to other cases of this kind. No other possible crime or offence was
identified which could have rendered directed surveillance necessary for the
purposes of preventing or detecting crime.
62.
The Complainants contend that the sole or predominant purpose of the
surveillance was to implement, maintain and enforce the catchment area
element of the Council’s schools admissions policy, which is not expressed in
the application form or the booklet to be supported by a criminal sanction. The
only effective sanction threatened and in fact applied for misinformation was
denial or withdrawal of a place at the school. There was no evidence from the
Council of any real intention or likelihood of it prosecuting the target of the
surveillance for an offence against the general criminal law. There was no
warning or caution given about the possible commission of a criminal offence
by supplying incorrect information, no evidence of any instance of the Council
bringing or even threatening to bring a criminal prosecution. The surveillance
itself rather than the threat of a prosecution, was used by the Council for the
purpose of deterring parents from obtaining school places by giving false
addresses.
63.
The Tribunal’s determination is that the Council has not established that this
directed surveillance of the Complainants was for the purpose of preventing or
Page 18