Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of
Information (FoI) Act 2000 (the Act) by HMIC (reference 12076)
Responding Unit: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary
Chronology
FoI request received by HMIC: 02/06/09
HMIC response:
17/06/09
Request for 1st internal review: 17/06/09
Response:
30/06/09
Request for 2nd internal review: 31/06/09
Subject of request
1. On 2 June 2009 Mr. Hansen (the applicant) submitted a request to Her
Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) seeking disclosure of
material pertaining to HMIC’s undertaking of a review into the policing
of public protests following the G20 disturbances. Mr Hansen’s enquiry
was composed of four separate elements:
• A request for a copy of the terms of reference of the review
• A request for
“pen portraits” of the careers of those undertaking
the review
• A request for a copy of the
“call to evidence made” and the
names of the organisations such was submitted to
• An indication of the publication date for the review in question
The response by HMIC
2. On 17 June 2009 HMIC responded to Mr Hansen. The response dealt
in turn with the four elements of Mr Hansen’s enquiry, with information
being provided in response to each of the issues raised. No
exemptions of the Act were cited in this correspondence. The
presumption therefore being that HMIC believed that they had fully
disclosed all material requested.
Mr. Hansen’s requests for internal reviews
3. On 17 June 2009 Mr Hansen requested an internal review. He
substantiated his request by stating that the information provided to
him was not presented in a
“plain text format”, as had been requested.
4. On 30 July 2009 a response was dispatched to Mr Hansen by the
Home Office’s Information Access Team. This response served to
provide Mr Hansen with a copy of the previous response in a plain text
format as requested.
5. Mr Hansen was informed a full internal review had not been conducted
at this juncture as it appeared that the response now provided satisfied
the remit of the original FoI request. It was furthermore noted that the
response initially provided had been dispatched within 20 working days
of Mr Hansen’s request being received.
6. On 31 July 2009 Mr Hansen requested a second internal review. Mr
Hansen said that the response provided to his FoI request was
deficient in that it failed to adequately satisfy the third element of his
request – namely to be provided with a copy of the
“call to evidence” made by HMIC and a list of the organisations such was submitted to.
Procedural issues
7. As previously noted, the response of 17 June 2009 sought to provide a
substantive response to Mr Hansen’s initial enquiry. This response did
not cite any exemptions against disclosure and was provided within 20
working days of the receipt of Mr Hansen’s request.
8. In this respect HMIC are seen to have successfully discharged their
statutory obligations under section 10 (1) of the Act.
9. Furthermore, with regard to the substance of the response provided to
Mr Hansen, HMIC are seen to have satisfactorily discharged their
obligations under section 1 (1) (b) of the Act. Namely, in response to
the particulars of Mr Hansen’s request HMIC communicated all the
relevant information held to him.
10. It is noted however, with regards to the third component of Mr
Hansen’s request that HMIC are not seen to have satisfactorily
discharged their obligations under the Act in this instance.
11. This conclusion is based on the determination that HMIC, in this
instance, do not hold the specific information requested by Mr Hansen.
Accordingly, by failing to fully confirm such to Mr Hansen HMIC are
seen to stand in breach of section 1 (1) (a) of the Act.
12. I am satisfied however that Mr Hansen was informed in writing of his
right to request an independent review of the handling of his request as
allowed for in section 45 (2) (e) of the Act.
13. I am further satisfied that the Mr Hansen was informed in writing of his
right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as required by
section 50 of the Act.
Consideration of the response
14. Mr Hansen has specified that he is concerned only with a review of the
response by HMIC to the third component of his FoI request.
Accordingly, this is the only issue that wil be examined in the following
consideration.
15. Having examined the original request submitted by Mr Hansen on 2
June 2009, it is noted that the third component of such is formed of two
distinct elements:
(i)
A request for a copy of material that is seen to constitute a
formal request for evidence to be submitted to the HMIC
review of public policing
(i )
A list of the organisations that the above request was
submitted to
16. The response provided to Mr Hansen on both 17 June 2009 and 30
June 2009 is seen to be deficient as neither point (i) or (i ) outlined
above appear to have been satisfactorily addressed. Specifically, no
explicit comment was made as to whether HMIC held the information in
question and furthermore no material of the requested character was
supplied to Mr Hansen. Instead Mr Hansen was supplied only with a
description of the general procedure by which evidence was collected
and not the particular information that he had requested.
17. In actuality however, the response provided to Mr Hansen, though
procedurally incorrect, was nonetheless substantively accurate in
respect that the ‘call to evidence’ under discussion did in fact consist in
the main of police officers proactively approaching individuals in the
locality of the G20 disturbances.
18. Having consulted with HMIC on this matter it has been confirmed to me
that no single document or form was distributed as a means of
requesting evidence. Instead approaches were made on an ad hoc
basis to individuals and protest groups in situ at the time of the
incidents in question. In addition the views and evidence of local
residents and concerned parties were sought by way of door to door
interviews and a dedicated email inbox for all related correspondence.
19. As such, no documentation that might be seen to characterise what Mr
Hansen terms a “copy of the call to evidence” is in effect held by HMIC.
Consequently Mr Hansen’s request could not have been adequately
discharged by HMIC other than to clarify to him that information of the
sort requested was not in fact held.
20. Subsequently it follows that no corresponding list of organisations is
held by HMIC to whom the proposed “copy of the call to evidence”
could have therefore been made.
Advice and assistance
21. Having considered the body of correspondence between HMIC, Home
Office and Mr Hansen it is my view that these bodies satisfactorily
discharged their obligations under section 16 (1) and section 16 (2) of
the Act.
22. In particular, the Home Office response of 30 July 2009, providing Mr
Hansen with a second copy of the requested information is seen to
satisfy the character of ‘advice and ‘assistance’ as detailed in section
16 of the Act.
23. Furthermore, Mr Hansen was also informed that if he experienced any
difficulties accessing the information provided to him then he was
welcome to contact the Home Office FoI team for assistance.
Conclusion
24. Whilst HMIC responded to the initial FoI request within 20 working
days, it is noted that they did not fully satisfy the third component Mr
Hansen’s enquiry. Accordingly, as noted, HMIC are seen to stand in
breach of section 1 (1) (a) of the Act.
25. In all other respects however HMIC are seen to have fully discharged
their obligations under the Act.
Information Access Team
Home Office
02/02/10
