the permissible purpose of directed surveillance in all circumstances or for all
time. In another case the facts may be found to be different from this case so
as to fall within, or be reasonably believed to fall within, the provisions of the
Fraud Act 2006; there may be new arguments on the possible application of
the criminal law; or there may have been legislation creating new criminal
offences committed by making knowingly false or misleading statements for
the purpose of obtaining a school place.
V. Necessity
66.
The second question is: did the person granting the authorisation believe that
authorisation of directed surveillance of the Complainants was necessary on
the ground of preventing or detecting crime?
67.
The Complainants contend that authorisation of directed surveillance of them
could not reasonably have been believed to be necessary (and was not
necessary) on the specified grounds.
68.
This contention applies with particular force to the 3 Complainants who are
minors. There was no consideration whether it was necessary to put them
under surveillance in order to prevent or detect a crime by their mother in
supplying allegedly false information to the Council about their ordinary
residence. The Tribunal conclude that there should have been.
69.
Nor was there any evidence that the Council had, prior to authorisation of
directed surveillance as being reasonably believed to be necessary, considered
whether measures other than covert surveillance were feasible and sufficiently
effective to enable admissions information to be verified when suspicions
Page 20