render the activity itself unlawful (see the saving provision in s 80 RIPA); and
that RIPA has not rendered the surveillance in this case unlawful.
89.
The Council also makes the general point that, as a local education authority,
it had power to investigate suspected abuse of the schools admission system
and that power was broad enough to include the limited directed surveillance
undertaken in this case.
90.
As for the Article 8 point the Council contends that there was no violation of
the right to respect for private life. The surveillance was limited. The log was
created to provide evidence to put before the Complainants, not for long term
storage on a database.
91.
The Council also contends that the minimal level of interference was justified
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others referred to in Article
8(2) and was in accordance with law.
92.
On this point the Tribunal refer to the detailed findings and rulings above and,
in the light of them, have concluded that the Council has acted in a way which
is incompatible with the Complainants’ Article 8 rights.
IX. Determination of form of relief
93.
The Tribunal make a determination in favour of the Complainants on their
complaints of directed surveillance by the Council. Notwithstanding the
limited nature of the surveillance, there was, in relation to each of the
complainants, a breach of his or her Article 8 right to respect for private life.
Page 26