“Surveillance is necessary to prevent fraudulent obtaining of a
school place. No other way of obtaining accurate information on
where family resides on a permanent basis.”
23.
The Tribunal find that, in granting the authorisation, the Authorising Officer
considered “whether a criminal offence might be being committed.” He took
advice on that point from a senior colleague specialising in education law and
with experience of cases raising suspicions of fraudulent applications. The
Authorising Officer and his senior colleague concluded that, although a
prosecution in such circumstances would be unusual and was not certain to
follow, the investigation might reveal a criminal offence under the Fraud Act
2006 and that there was the potential for a prosecution to be brought.
24.
Account was also taken by the Council of the fact that the relevant Code of
Practice issued by the Department for Children Schools and Families referred
to places being obtained “fraudulently”, indicating that such abuse might
properly be considered criminal. The Authorising Officer knew that, if abuse
were discovered, the offer of the school place in question would be withdrawn.
25.
The Tribunal find that the Authorising Officer considered that the directed
surveillance was necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime in
the sense that the discovery of any abuse might lead to the detection of a
criminal offence in circumstances where a prosecution might follow and that
this would enable the Council to prevent a school place from being obtained
by fraud. It seemed unlikely to the applicant for authorisation and to the
Authorising Officer that the true facts could be ascertained without using
directed surveillance. It seemed to them that directed surveillance would be a
proportionate step.
Page 7