the hearing in this Tribunal is an alleged offence by Ms Paton under the Fraud
Act 2006, if the information supplied by her to the Council was false.
19.
In explaining why this directed surveillance was necessary on the grounds
identified it was stated in Box 7 that“Parents have supplied a fraudulent address and have
informed other people of their intention to do so. Complainant
has confirmed that they have been advised that the applicants
will be using a fraudulent address to obtain a school place and
have used the same address for previous applications for
school places.”
20.
In explaining why this directed surveillance was proportionate to what it
sought to achieve it was stated in Box 9 that the“Surveillance is unlikely to be intrusive. Obtaining correct
information will enable the LA [local authority] to offer school
places to genuine applicants. Evidence cannot be obtained by other
means as applicants are aware of the rules for applying for a school
place and have endeavoured to nullify these by providing what is
considered to be fraudulent documentation.”
21.
The Authorising Officer’s statement on the application form authorised
directed surveillance defined in Box 12 in the following terms “To prevent the obtaining of a school place using fraudulent
information. …The subjects of the surveillance are the applicants
named above and their family..Property 1 and Property 2…Monday
10 February to Monday 3 March 2008. Observation of both
premises and the family from vehicles Reg … and ….., use of
Canon EOS300D Digital Camera. It is to be achieved by observing
the day to day movements of the family.”
22.
In explaining why the Authorising Officer believed that the directed
surveillance was necessary and proportionate to what was sought to be
achieved by carrying it out, it was stated in Box 13 that-
Page 6