was given and no allowance was made in the setting of conditions of the
surveillance for the fact that 3 of the targets were young children who were not
believed to be parties to a suspected crime. The suspected crime could be
prevented or detected without the children themselves being made targets of
the surveillance.
74.
Points have also been made about other measures that the Council could have
taken to investigate the ordinary residence of the Complainants and establish
the facts, such as visits to Property 1 and Property 2 and interviews of Ms
Paton and C2. The Council did not appear to have considered them. The
Tribunal would not, however, conclude that the grant of authorisation was
disproportionate for that reason. In addition to receiving two complaints from
named persons by phone, the Council had requested production of
documentary evidence and made other inquiries which had not conclusively
established and, indeed, had left some doubt about, the ordinary residence of
the Complainants.
75.
It follows from the Tribunal’s determination of the above points that the
Council is not entitled to rely on the authorisation granted on 8 February 2008
to justify the lawfulness of the admitted directed surveillance.
76.
A number of other arguments are advanced on behalf of the Council to the
Tribunal in order to justify the surveillance. These are briefly dealt with
below.
VII. Other points
Local Government Act 1972
Page 22