77.
The Council contend that, to justify the directed surveillance, it could rely on
(a) s 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, whereby “a local authority shall
have power to do any thing…which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive
to, the discharge of any of their functions”; and (b) paragraphs 1.50 and 1.51
of the School Admission Code issued pursuant to s84 of the Schools Standards
and Framework Act 1998, whereby it may be reasonable for an admission
authority to withdraw an offer of a school place in very limited circumstances,
including “when…the admission authority offered the place on the basis of a
fraudulent or intentionally misleading application from a parent (for example,
a false claim to residence in a catchment area)”.
78.
That contention would, however, be met by the provisions of Article 8 under
which the Council would have to show that the directed surveillance was
necessary for the purpose of the prevention or detection of crime or that it was
necessary for “the protection of the rights and freedoms of others” and was
proportionate. The Council would be in no better position as, for the reasons
already given, it is unable to establish that the surveillance carried out was
necessary for the permitted purpose or was proportionate.
R(SB) v. Governors of Denbigh High School [2007] 1 AC 100
79.
The Tribunal do not accept the submission on behalf of the Council that they
should reject the complaints on the authority of the decision of the House of
Lords in Denbigh High School. The contention is that the outcome of the
directed surveillance was not a breach of the Complainants’ Article 8 rights
and that the complaints should not therefore be determined in the
Complainants’ favour. That should be the result, even if the Tribunal found
Page 23