Freedom of Information, Information Compliance Unit, Kent Police Headquarters, Sutton Road,
Maidstone, Kent ME15 9BZ Phone: 01622 654413
Fax: 01622 654437 - e-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Theresa Cooper
Date:
25th August 2009
[FOI #9216 email]
Tel No. (DDI)
01622 664413
FOI Ref.
1955/2009
Dear Ms. Cooper,
INFORMATION REQUEST 1955/2008
I write in connection with your request for information received by Kent Police on the 11th
March 2009. I am very conscious that this response finds you some time after the statutory
time limit permitted to a public authority for dealing with requests has passed and for the
lateness of this response I apologise.
I have discussed with you in our telephone conversation some of the reasons for this delay,
which has been principally caused by a combination of recent staffing difficulties in this unit,
coupled by an increase in the workload associated with FOI requests.
However, the delay has also been caused by the time it has taken me to compile information
relevant to your request, and examine it in order to arrive at a conclusion concerning how much
of this information can be released. When digesting this response, please bear in mind that this
release represents the information that I have determined it is appropriate to release into the
public domain at this time, and this response also takes into account that the fact that some
information concerning this investigation has also been previously released by Kent Police via
press releases to the media.
In your request, you asked for the following information, and I have numbered your questions
as follows for ease of reference;
1) How many girls did Kent Police interview/take statements from out of over ten Kendall House
girls that contacted Kent Police?
2) What crimes to Kendall House girls were fully investigated by the police and what was the
nature of the investigations?
3) How many complaints, sexual abuse, forced drug abuse, physical abuse and mental abuse
were made to Kent Police stations from KH girls between 1970 -2009 and what were the results
of those complaints/allegations?
4) How many deaths at Kendall House did Kent Police have to respond to during 1970-1986?
Kent Police : Central Operations FOI
Policy No. D18
Form No.3540_11 rev Feb 2005 [erev 02/5] v1.5
Question 2 relates to allegations of physical and sexual abuse that were made concerning the
treatment of young females who were held in care during the 1970s and 1980s at Kendall
House in Gravesend, a residential home for adolescent females, who, because of a variety of
difficulties and problems that they were experiencing, required a high level of supervision.
The allegations principally concerned restraint and control techniques employed, which included
a drug treatment regime that was the subject of considerable media interest and criticism from
some quarters. However, the methodology was recognised and common in England and Wales
at the time, although it is no longer the practise.
Kent Police records show that specific allegations of abuse, including sexual abuse, at Kendall
House were not made until 1999, and related to a period almost two decades earlier. After an
initial investigation, which included some arrests and interviews, a detailed case file was
submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who recommended no further action.
In late 2006, the allegations were raised again (by the same party) and in the summer of 2007,
Kent Police undertook a second investigation into the matter under the operational name of
NOVA. This was a thorough investigation that reviewed previous allegations and how they had
been dealt with, and also sought and interviewed further witnesses who had come to light. A
file was again submitted to the CPS who determined once again that there was insufficient
evidence to support a prosecution.
Questions 1 and 3 ask for information concerning how many girls who were resident at the
home were interviewed in relation to these alleged offences. This information was held for the
purpose of an investigation, and it therefore engages the exemption at Section 30 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. The relevant subsections are included below:
30 - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities
(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time
been held by the authority for the purposes of—
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a
view to it being ascertained—
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it
2) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if—
(a) it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes of its functions
relating to—
(i) investigations falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b),
(b) it relates to the obtaining of information from confidential sources.
However, this exemption is a qualified exemption, meaning that it is subject to a public interest
test, which follows.
Kent Police : Central Operations FOI
Form No.3540_11 rev Jan 2005 [erev 1/05] v1.1
Policy No. D18
In favour of disclosing the information is the principal of accountability, in that releasing the
information would help to inform the public whether the investigations interviewed a sufficient
number of witnesses who may have been able to provide information that could support the
allegations.
This must be balanced against the issue that to provide the numbers of girls who were
interviewed could identify to other persons (who may have knowledge of the allegations) that
individuals did or did not come forward. Any contact between a witness and the police is
conducted with an expectation of confidentiality and so section 30(2)(b) is clearly engaged. A
decision whether or not to contact the police would have been a matter for the individual and
their decision must be respected.
Furthermore we must consider the presumption of innocence that lies at the heart of the
criminal justice system and the rights of persons interviewed in relation to these allegations,
which concern offences alleged to have occurred nearly twenty years previously. It may not be
right for Kent Police to release information that could contribute to these allegations remaining
in the public domain when thus far they have been uncorroborated.
When considering that this matter has been examined in detail at least twice, and that on both
occasions the CPS have determined that it would not be in the public interest to mount a
prosecution, I have no choice but to concur with their view and conclude that it would not be in
the public interest to release detailed information connected with this investigation, and
therefore Kent Police are exempt from the duty to provide this information.
However, Kent Police can confirm that all witnesses who came forward were interviewed and all
available evidence has been considered. Further, the Kent Police Serious Case Review team
has recently examined the investigation and concluded that it had been very detailed and
thorough. I note also that the case files remain open and that Kent Police have, via press
releases, invited any persons who may have fresh evidence to contact crimestoppers or the
North Kent Public Protection Unit.
4) How many deaths at Kendall House did Kent Police have to respond to during 1970-1986?
Section 1 of the freedom of Information Act 2000 defines the general right of access to
information held by public authorities.
(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled—
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the
description specified in the request,
The Freedom of Information Act provides access only to recorded information that is held by
the public authority and no specific information is held by Kent Police regarding this part of your
request. There is every likelihood that Kent Police may have investigated deaths at Kendall
House during the period specified, for example a suicide or an accidental death. However, as
our systems at that time were entirely configured for the handling of individual cases rather
than the provision of statistical information, and any information relating to the above will have
been archived and then, in most cases, destroyed, we would simply be unable to locate
information that may answer this question. Further, we would have no way of knowing if other
information had existed and then been destroyed because it no longer served a purpose to
policing, such as, for example, case notes regarding the initial investigation into a suspicious
death where it was then established that the cause of death was suicide.
Kent Police : Central Operations FOI
Form No.3540_11 rev Jan 2005 [erev 1/05] v1.1
Policy No. D18
The registrar of births, deaths and marriages would be one possible route to this information as
‘place of death’ would be recorded on death certificates. However, this would not assist where
the deceased was pronounced life extinct in a hospital. Further, it is possible that, where an
inquest was held into a death in unexplained circumstances an inquest may have been
conducted resulting in the Coroner’s office holding some information in regard to this.
However, I have discussed the matter with the North Kent Coroners and can inform you that
any files older than 15 years, which would be the case here, would be sent for archiving and in
most cases where the archivists can detect no obvious public interest in retaining the
information, the file would be destroyed.
It is my view that to determine whether Kent Police or any other authority held this information
would involve the retrieval of archived records, which would itself incur a cost, and then the
detailed manual investigation into the records that remained. Such an exercise would more
than likely extend beyond the reasonable limit both in money and time that an authority is
required to invest in responding to a request, currently £450 or eighteen hours as set out in the
Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004. Further, even if such a
review of records were carried out, the exercise would still fail to yield an accurate answer, as it
is possible if not likely that some relevant records will have been destroyed. Therefore, even to
determine whether the authority held records in order to comply with our duty under section 1
of the Act would extend beyond the cost limits and would still be likely to fail. This would
therefore be subject to the exemption at section 12 of the Act as follows;
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if
the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the
appropriate limit.
(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its obligation to comply with
paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone
would exceed the appropriate limit.
FOIA, Section 12 - Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit
Thank you for your interest in Kent Police. A sheet, which summarised your rights, was
enclosed with the acknowledgement sent to you and as suggested therein, should you have any
further questions concerning your request, please contact me quoting the reference number
shown above.
If you feel your request has not been properly handled or you are otherwise dissatisfied with
the outcome of your request, you have the right to complain. We will conduct an internal
review to investigate the matter and endeavor to reply within 20 working days. If your appeal
concerns the decision to apply an exemption, it would assist the review if you would outline
why you believe the exemption does not apply.
You may submit your complaint by writing to:
Head of the Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Kent Police Headquarters
Sutton Road,
Maidstone Kent
ME15 9BZ
Or by e-mailing
[Kent Police request email]
Kent Police : Central Operations FOI
Form No.3540_11 rev Jan 2005 [erev 1/05] v1.1
Policy No. D18
If you are still dissatisfied following our internal review, you have the right under section 50 of
the Act to complain directly to the Information Commissioner. Before considering your
complaint, the Information Commissioner would normally expect you to have exhausted the
complaints procedures provided by Kent Police.
The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:
FOI Compliance Team (complaints)
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Amos
Freedom of Information Adviser
Kent Police : Central Operations FOI
Form No.3540_11 rev Jan 2005 [erev 1/05] v1.1
Policy No. D18
