Complainants who are minors. The complaints, which are in almost identical
terms, are made to the Tribunal under s 65 (2) (b) and (4) RIPA.
5.
The Complainants are all members of the same family. Their complaints are of
unlawful directed surveillance. Three of the Complainants (C3, C4 and C5)
are children who were aged between 3 and 10 at the time of the surveillance.
Their names have been anonymised to avoid identification. The two adult
Complainants, Ms Jennifer Paton and her partner, C2, are their parents. Ms
Paton has publicised her complaint in the media. She has not asked for her
name to be anonymised. Her children and C2 use a surname different from
hers.
6.
The Respondent to all the complaints is Poole Borough Council (the Council).
It is the local education authority for the area in which all the Complainants
ordinarily reside.
7.
The essence of the complaints is that, between 10 February and 3 March 2008
inclusive, the Complainants were the victims of unlawful directed surveillance
authorised and carried out by the Council. Only after the surveillance had been
completed did the Council inform Ms Paton of the operation that had been
covertly carried out over the period of 3 weeks.
8.
The essence of the Council’s response is that the directed surveillance
operation was duly authorised under RIPA and was lawful. The Council says
that the directed surveillance of the Complainants was necessary for the
prevention or detection of crime and that it was proportionate for determining
the genuineness of information supplied by Ms Paton to the Council, as the
local education authority for the relevant area. That information was about the
Page 3