A DAD accused of orchestrating an acid attack on his three-year-old son paid private investigators to follow his wife.

A PI even fitted a tracking device with GPS to his wife's car in the months before the alleged acid attack at Home Bargains in Worcester. Seven defendants, six men and a woman, deny conspiracy to apply a corrosive fluid with intent to burn, maim, disfigure or disable the boy or cause him grievous bodily harm following the alleged attack on Saturday, July 21 last year.

The defendants are: The child's 40-year-old father who cannot be identified for legal reasons; Adam Cech, aged 27, of Farnham Road, Birmingham; Jan Dudi, 25, of Cranbrook Road, Birmingham; Jabar Paktia, 42, of New Hampton Road, Wolverhampton; Norbert Pulko, aged 22, of Sutherland Road, London; Saied Hussini, 42, of Wrottesley Road, London; and Martina Badiova, 22, of Newcombe Road, Birmingham.

A partner in the firm ‘Local Investigator’ told the court the company was paid £1,200 by the defendant in March last year for the surveillance work. A man named as ‘Nick’ also fitted a tracking device to her car, the jury heard.

Matthew Dalton carried out surveillance after the Afghan father supplied a photo of his wife, details about their children and her address in Worcester. The company performs a range of investigative work including watching ‘cheating spouses’ and tracing missing people.

Speaking from the witness box on Thursday, Mr Dalton said he supplied observation reports and video footage of the defendant’s wife and children and followed her into a supermarket, filming her using covert cameras and sought evidence of her meeting ‘a third party male'.

Under cross-examination from Phil Bradley QC, acting for the father, Mr Dalton said the instructions were provided verbally and had not been written down. He remembered the man telling him he was ‘concerned about the welfare of his children’.

Another partner in the firm, Tony Burbidge, said the firm agreed to provide a 15 hour package, providing surveillance over three days.

Under cross-examination Mr Burbidge accepted this tracking device, later removed by the same man who fitted it, was the company’s initiative and had not been requested by the client.

A family support worker gave evidence about the dad’s supervised contact sessions with his children, describing how the ‘atmosphere became uncomfortable’ when he began examining a small scratch in the corner of the right eye of one of his children and tried to take a photograph of the injury, something he was challenged about at the time.

She said: “He said he was concerned about the child’s welfare and he was mistrusting of his mother-in-law and of the children’s care.”

During one contact session the dad arrived with ‘two females', one of whom said there was a mark on the defendant's son's back, the same child that was later the victim of the acid attack.

She suggested it looked like a burn mark made by a spoon.

However, the witness said it looked more like a superficial scratch that had been there for some time. The boy's mum said to the witness that her son had sustained the injury after falling off a chair.

Phil Bradley, for the father, said that his client showed ‘enthusiasm and warmth’ towards his children and the witness replied ‘yes’. Mr Bradley said his client would bring his children presents and she agreed.

It is the prosecution case that the father was attempting to manufacture evidence against his estranged wife in an ongoing legal dispute over custody and access rights.

Yesterday involved the jury being taken through a timeline of significant events in the prosecution case.

The trial continues.