detecting crime. The evidence shows that the Council’s purpose, in the
circumstances of this case, was to detect whether the Complainants were, as
Ms Paton informed the Council, ordinarily resident in the catchment area of
the preferred school and, if they were not, to prevent C5 from taking up a
place at that school. The Tribunal accept that the Council was not seeking to
use surveillance to create a secret database of information. But, as the Council
asserted in its evidence to the Tribunal, the surveillance was used “to obtain
evidence that could be put to the parents concerned to challenge their claims.”
64.
As for the prevention or detection of crime, no specific crime was identified in
the application for authorisation or in the grant of it, though that would not
necessarily render the authorisation invalid if it was reasonably clear what sort
of criminal offence might be prevented. More important there was no
consideration as to whether there was or needed to be any evidence of any
actual or potential criminal offence of any kind by the 3 children or their
father, yet they were all put under surveillance. As for Ms Paton, the Council
has not established that, even if the information supplied to the Council by her
about their ordinary residence was false (which it accepts it was not), that
could have amounted to a criminal offence, or to a reasonable belief that such
an offence was or would be committed under the Fraud Act 2006, that being
the only possible source of criminal offence that was considered when the
authorisation was granted.
65.
The Tribunal’s determination on this point relates to the particular facts of this
case and the arguments on the possible application of the Fraud Act 2006
advanced to the Tribunal. This determination is not conclusive of the point of
Page 19