I'm sorry Gavin but this really isn't right at all.
"The police do not require a warrant to fit a tracking device in or on a vehicle. Authority levels are set out in a Home Office circular. Authority to deploy a tracking device can be given by the Chief Officer or an Assistant Commissioner in the case of the Metropolitan Police."
Whilst the use of the term 'warrant' is not appropriate neither is the reference to the Home Office Circular. The circular to which, I presume, you refer, was issued in 1984 and ceased to have effect in 1999 when Part II of the Police Act 1997 came into force. The statutory regime governing property interference (effectively trespass to land or goods) prescribed authroisation levels roughly analogous to that previously included in the HO circular.
As placing a VTD on the outside or inside of a vehicle without consent is a trespass to that vehicle, authorisation under the Police Act would be required to make that trespass lawful.
So the police do, in fact, require an authorisation (read 'warrant') to lawfully deploy a VTD to the outside of a vehicle. My own personal view, however, is that even without a Part III authorisation, the trespass is so slight that the courts would consider it effectively de minimis and throw out any civil action subsequently taken by the owner.
"...Whilst the European Convention of Human Rights was brought about to control the activities of Public Authorities, anyone can breach the human rights of another. The case on this is that of Jean F Jones v University of Warwick (2003) ... Whilst the video footage was admitted into evidence, as it went to disprove the claim, the deception perpetrated by the investigators was held by the court to amount to a breach of the claimant’s human rights."
This isn't quite right. By virtue of Section 6 of the HRA98 only public authorities are prohibited from acting incompatibly with the Act. The court is a public authority but insurance companies and private investigators patently are not (unless acting as agents for a PA).
In the case quoted, the court did indeed criticise the tactics of the PI, particularly around the trespass to land, but it did not, and could not, rule that it had breached the HRA. The matter before the court was about the admissibility in subsequent proceedings of the evidence obtained. The court, quite rightly, dismissed that claim.
Any action for breach of human rights would need to be taken seperately by the 'victims' under Section 7 of the Act itself and would have been bound to fail. Given the court's obligation as a public authority to comply with the HRA, however, I can see a time in the future when the HRA will effectively apply, through the development of case law, to the actions of private individuals. Someday, but not now.
"It follows therefore that surveillance using a tracker must be “Directed Surveillance” under the Act."
No. There is only ever a need for public authorities to consider RIPA authorisation where the covert surveillance is likely to interfere with a person's Article 8 rights. My argument is that simply obtaining data about the movements of a lump of metal (i.e. a car) does not breach anybody's Article 8 rights. Even if you can identify the driver through conventional surveillance this only gives you a record of that person's movements from A to B (and possibly C, D and E).
Pure VTD surveillance is unlikely to breach Article 8 and therefore RIPA authorisation is uneccesary.
"All Directed Surveillance undertaken by a public authority MUST be authorised whether it is conventional, human surveillance or surveillance carried out by the use of a tracking device alone."
Absolutely not. All surveillance that interferes with a person's Article 8 rights should be authorised but there is no compulsion whatsoever (see RIPA s80). It's a matter for each LA to consider.
"In order to tighten up the use of indiscriminate and disproportionate surveillance by local authorities, they have banned its use for minor offences."
Not yet they haven't. I await with interest the draft order seeking to change the purposes for which LAs can seek authorisation. The point remains that RIPA can never restrict the use of surveillance because it doesn't actually permit it! Surveillance is not unlawful for any purpose.
Apologies for the lengthy response but there are just so many myths and misunderstandings around RIPA, HRA et al that need to be addressed.
