Surveillance admissible evidence in care case

fostering and adoption

Evidence that may have been obtained illegally is eligible for inclusion in a care application, a Judge has ruled.

His Honour Judge Moradifar had been asked to consider a former couple whose children had been made the subject of care proceedings. Social workers believed the couple were still in a relationship despite their claims to the contrary.

They hired a private investigator who, in April this year, observed the father in the mother’s house during the course of his surveillance, several months after they said they had broken up. The authority applied to submit this evidence during the proceedings, to the dismay of the parents who insisted that the surveillance had been in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which governs ‘respect for private and family life’.

In the Family Court, His Honour Judge Moradifar explained:

“The local authority accepted that the evidence did not show that the mother was present …. The local authority relied on this evidence as part of a wider canvas to prove an allegation that the parents have remained in a relationship despite their maintained assertion that they have separated.”

The parents, by contrast, pointed to the father’s “difficult personal circumstances at that time”, as a result of which she had agreed he could stay in her home. But she had not been present at the time, as she staying with her own mother at the time.

The parents argued that hiring the investigator had been misguided and disproportionate, and that doing so had breached not only their human rights but also the Regulatory of Investigatory Powers Act. The latter legislation governs the use of surveillance by public bodies.

The evidence gathered by the investigator could be included in the Council’s case, Judge Moradifar concluded, as the nature of the couple’s relationship was central to this.

He declared:

“…on a cursory analysis of the facts that remained in issue and required the court’s determination, it is clear that the surveillance evidence was relevant to this allegation. Indeed no party has sought to submit that it was not.”

But, he said, he did not have the jurisdiction to rule on whether or not the evidence had been legally admissible. “Illegally obtained” evidence was not automatically excluded from such cases Judge Moradifar continued, but responsibility for any  illegality would remain with the body who produced it.

“If the court gives permission for illegally obtained evidence to be adduced, it will not absolve a public authority or body from its responsibility for any lack of compliance with the relevant statutory provisions and any sanctions that may follow.”

The parents’ allegations would have to be pursued via a separate court application he explained.

Read the ruling here.

Image by Matt Blaze via Flickr

Stowe Family Law Web Team

View more from this author

5 comments

Paul - July 22, 2017 at 2:02pm

Looks like we are in for a worrying slide towards the state monitoring us with PI’s. How disturbing. I working in the Job Centre. I never under stood why they bother varrying rates for couples. The savings are tiny an it just leads to a culture of people trying to deceive the state.

dr. manhattan62 - July 24, 2017 at 2:00pm

it would seem Big Brother is way more than just a bit of entertainment on tv.
what the public need know is how can they find out if their Local Authority has been spying on them. i dont think they would admit it when asked by parents.

Andrew - July 25, 2017 at 11:51am

There should be a rigorous rule in private and public law excluding all illegally obtained evidence and all evidence obtained from the leads from illegally obtained evidence. Illegal surveillance – and illegally opened post or emails – are poison in the well of justice.

Paul - July 25, 2017 at 2:06pm

For a court to incude ‘illegally’ aquired evidence is the height of hypocracy. Nobody will reapect courts who cannot oppeeate within their own rules.

C - August 28, 2017 at 1:48am

The ruling was made in relation to my two very young children. The surveillence team actually followed my ex partner from my flat to the contact centre where he was due to see my boys. They submitted footage of him sitting inside the contact centre so the likelihood of them having filmed my children as well, in my eyes, is pretty high. I am a 20 year old woman whose boys are close to being adopted simply because that same local authority couldent do their job properly when I was in their care for 11 years. And this is definiltly not me playing the ‘blame game’ as the same judge pointed that out in near enough the same words in his own judgement.
Am just very keen to expose the truth on a VERY corrupt local authority who I am in the midst of receiving a very high payout in compensation for the abuse I suffered as a child whilst in ‘their care’. The fact that they want that to be a cycle that continues with my own children as well, is disgusting.

Leave a comment