were aroused following the inquiries referred to in paragraph 28 above. The
Tribunal conclude that consideration should have been given to such measures
prior to authorisation.
VI. Proportionality
70.
The third question was: did the person granting the authorisation believe that
the authorised surveillance was proportionate to what was sought to be
achieved by carrying it out?
71.
The Complainants contend that the surveillance purportedly authorised could
not reasonably have been believed to be proportionate (and was not
proportionate) to what was sought to be achieved by carrying it out.
72.
The points made on behalf of the Complainants are that the Article 8 right was
a fundamental one; that the public interest in this case in preventing or
detecting the giving of a false address to the Council to gain a school place
was not of a high order and was not a pressing social need; the surveillance
measures designed to attain the objective were not rationally connected to it
involving the use of means that were disproportionate, extending over a period
of 22 days and including children as targets and intrusion extending to
residential premises and a private vehicle over the half term holiday and
weekends; and that the relevant date for determining the ordinary residence of
C5 had already passed when the authorisation was granted and the
surveillance was carried out .
73.
The Tribunal have concluded that the surveillance was not proportionate and
could not reasonably have been believed to be proportionate. No consideration
Page 21