Ali Dizaei

Dear Mr Britain,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010020002355
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 09/02/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* "A copy of Commander Hitchcock's report dated 11th November 2003 into
the conduct of then Supt. Dizaei.
* A copy of the agreement between the the MPS, Ali Dizaei and others
dated 24th October 2004. "

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference
to a third party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to
achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your
right of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Katie London on telephone number 02071613907 quoting
the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Katie London
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied
with the decision you may make application to the Information
Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has
been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Sir/Madam,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010020002355
I write in connection with your request for information that was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 09/02/2010. I note you seek
access to the following information:

1. A copy of Commander Hitchcock's report dated 11th November 2003 into
the conduct of then Supt. Dizaei.

2. A copy of the agreement between the MPS, Ali Dizaei and others dated
24th October 2004.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption:

Section 30: Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 06 April
2010.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 230 5204 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Damion Baird
Information Manager
Directorate of Professional Standards

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for your email. I am sorry for the delay in responding to your
request. Unfortunately the delay is as a result of the number of
requests received by the department with responsibility for your
request. The response to your request is however currently being drafted
and should be completed within the next 10 working days.

Thank you for your patience in awaiting a response.

Yours sincerely

Damion Baird

show quoted sections

Dear Sir/Madam,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010020002355

I write in response to your request for information that was received by
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 09 February 2010. I apologise for
the delay in responding to your request and any inconvenience caused. I
note that you seek access to the following information:
1. A copy of Commander Hitchcock's report dated 11th November 2003 into
the conduct of then Supt. Dizaei.
2. A copy of the agreement between the MPS, Ali Dizaei and others dated
24th October 2004.

Your request for information has been considered by the MPS in accordance
with the right to access information created by the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (the Act). When a request is made, a public authority must inform
you, when permitted, whether the information requested is held. It must
then communicate that information to you. If a public authority decides
that it is cannot comply with all or part of a request, it must cite the
appropriate section or exemption of the Act and provide you with a
suitable explanation.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request. I can confirm that the
information you have requested is held by the MPS.

DECISION

In respect of your request for:

2. A copy of the agreement between the MPS, Ali Dizaei and others dated
24th October 2004.

I have disclosed the information requested in redacted format, that is I
have removed information that is exempt under the Act.

In relation to the information removed from this document, this emails
serves as a refusal notice under Section 17(1) of the Act.

REASON FOR DECISION
Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Please note that I have applied Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, in that
Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release
would identify any living individual and would breach the principles of
the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA). This exemption has been applied in
view of the Information Commissioner's Decision Notice dated 08 January
2008 in which the Commissioner required the MPS to disclose a redacted
version of this document. A full explanation of the reasons why this
document has been redacted can be found in the Information Commissioner's
Decision Notice. I have provided an internet link to this document below.

Information Commissioner's Decision Notice dated 08 January 2008
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...

Please note that the Met's concern about releasing this agreement focused
not on its content but the fact that it was a confidential agreement.
Agreements with staff members after a conflict are generally confidential
and will often contain a specific confidentiality clause.

The agreement reached reflected the negotiations between the parties
involved and their interests in resolving matters so that the MPS and its
employees were able to move on together and look to the future. The Met is
working closely with the BPA and other staff associations to continue the
increase in black and minority ethnic recruitment and make our service
more closely represent the diverse communities we serve.

MPS - Dizaei Compromise Agreement

In respect of your request for:

1. A copy of Commander Hitchcock's report dated 11th November 2003 into
the conduct of then Supt. Dizaei.

In response to your request, I have located two reports relevant to your
request, being the report referred to in your application dated 11
November 2003 and a supplementary (undated) report also authored by then
Commander Hitchcock. I have considered both documents for release under
the Act.

Having consider the information requested, I have decided to refuse
release of the information requested.

Under the Act, there are two types of exemption that can be applied to
information considered unsuitable for public release. These exemptions are
referred to as absolute exemptions and qualified exemptions.

When an absolute exemption is applied to information, a public authority
is not required to consider whether release of that information is in the
'public interest'.

When a qualified exemption is applied to information, a public authority
must establish whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or
withholding the requested information. The public interest is determined
by conducting a 'Public Interest Test' (PIT).

Both absolute and qualified exemptions can be further divided into
class-based or prejudice-based exemptions.

Class-based exemptions are those in which it is accepted the disclosure of
information would result in prejudice/harm. There is therefore no
requirement to demonstrate what that prejudice/harm may be.

Prejudiced-based exemptions are those where firstly, it is necessary to
establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that may result from disclosure
and secondly, if prejudice/harm is not certain, the likelihood of
prejudice/harm must be determined.

Having considered the information requested, I have found that the
following exemptions are applicable.

Section 40 (2) & (3) - Personal Information: Absolute Exemption/Class
Based
Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would identify any living
individual and breach the principles of the DPA. I have applied this
exemption in that the release of the reports written as a result of
investigations into then Superintendent Dizaei's alleged conduct, would
make his personal information and that of other information persons
referred to in the reports (i.e. witnesses and police officers) available
to the general public. I consider that this would be in breach of the
rights provided by the DPA.

Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and
lawfully by the data controller. I consider that the release of records
that would identify persons connected to this investigation would be
unfair, as there would be no reasonable expectation that their personal
information would be released publicly. I have also found that there has
been no agreement made to release their names to the general public.
Release would, therefore, be in breach of their right to the fair
processing of personal information under the DPA. In the case of Mr
Dizaei, whilst I accept that the same expectation of confidence does not
apply to him as with other persons mentioned in the reports (in view of
his former seniority within the MPS, his public profile and the
information already publicly available about Operation Helios), I do not
believe that release of the reports would be fair. Mr Dizaei was not
formally disciplined in relation to the allegations contained within the
reports. The allegations are accordingly unproven. Mr Dizaei did however
receive words of advice in respect of two areas in acknowledgement that
his conduct fell below the standards expected of a police officer.

In reaching my decision I have, in each case, given due regard to
Condition 1 and 6 of Schedule 2 of the DPA. Condition 1 of the DPA
requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has
been given whilst Condition 6 requires that consideration is given to
whether disclosure would constitute legitimate processing of that data. I
have found that in all cases, no prior consent has been given and/or would
likely be received to release this information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. I have also found that in the case of legitimate
processing, the release of this personal data would be unfair to Mr Dizaei
and other persons mentioned in the reports.

This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is
applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure.
Accordingly, there is no requirement to consider whether release of
information is in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would
result from disclosure.
Section 30(2)(a)(iii): Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public
Authorities: Qualified Exemption/Class Based
Under Section 30(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information that was obtained or recorded by an authority for the
purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the
law and/or is responsible for any conduct which is improper. This section
of the Act also allows information to be withheld if it has been held in
connection with ascertaining a person's fitness or competence in relation
to any profession or other activity that they are authorised to conduct.

I have applied this exemption in that the reports authored by then
Commander Hitchcock were written to assess whether Mr Dizaei was
responsible for any conduct which was improper.

This exemption is both qualified and class based. I am therefore required
to consider whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or
withholding the requested information. I have accordingly conducted a
Public Interest Test to determine whether the release of the requested
information is in the public interest. This exemption is also class based.
I am therefore not required to demonstrate what harm would result from
disclosure.

Public Interest Considerations Favouring Disclosure

Accountability
The MPS is a public authority and should be held to account for its
actions in investigating the conduct of its employees. The public release
of the reports prepared by then Commander Hitchcock would reinforce the
MPS commitment as an open and transparent organisation. Release would also
demonstrate that the alleged inappropriate conduct of Mr Dizaei has been
fully investigated by the MPS.
Public Awareness/Debate
There has been considerable public and media interest, speculation and
debate about Operation Helios, its proportionality and the decision of the
MPS to negotiate a confidential agreement with Mr Dizaei and other
interested parties. Release of the requested reports would place accurate
information into the public domain facilitating for an informed and
accurate public debate in relation to this investigation.
Actions of Public Officials
The requested reports are the product of the investigation into then
Superintendent Dizaei. Where the actions of public officials are examined,
there is a sizeable public interest in making the details of those
findings public. This is particularly the case when the investigation
concerns the actions of a senior public official.

Accountability for Public Funds
Where public funds have been spent, there is a significant public interest
in making information available that would demonstrate the way in which
those resources have been allocated. In this case, Operation Helios has
been subject of specific allegations regarding proportionality and cost.
Release of the requested reports would make public the specific findings
of this investigation facilitating an informed debate in this area.

Public Interest Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure
Internal Investigations
The requested reports were written by then Commander Hitchcock to assess
whether Mr Dizaei was responsible for any conduct which was improper. The
public release of these reports would not be in keeping with the terms of
reference for this investigation or the restricted use of internal
investigation reports.
Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Police Service
Operation Helios was a proactive, intelligence led investigation conducted
by the MPS's Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS). Release of the
requested reports would place, into the public domain, the manner in which
the MPS obtained evidence against then Superintendent Dizaei. This
information would be prejudicial to the ability of the Police Service to
conduct investigations into future allegations of crime and improper
conduct against police officers. This would not serve the public interest.

Information Provided in Confidence
During the course of Operation Helios, information was provided to police
to assist it in its enquiries. This information was provided in confidence
and upon the understanding that its use would be restricted to the MPS
investigation. The public release of information that was obtained solely
for a policing purpose, would be likely to dissuade persons from providing
information to police in connection with future investigations.
Fair Treatment of Individuals
Operation Helios was a complicated investigation that has already caused
distress to those persons connected to the investigation. In particular,
Mr Dizaei was both tried and cleared at court of perverting the course of
justice and misconduct in public office as a result of this investigation.
A number of other misconduct related allegations remain unproven. I
consider that release of the requested reports would be likely to cause
undue distress to persons connected to this investigation and in
particular Mr Dizaei.
Accountability for Public Funds
Operation Helios has been subject of allegations regarding its
proportionality and cost. There is accordingly a resultant public interest
in making the findings of the investigation available to the general
public on grounds of public debate in this area. This public interest is
lessened by the Recorder of London's (who presided over the trial)
comments with regard to the appropriateness of the investigation. The
Recorder of London stated "it is plain that the investigation had to be
begun and continued as it was, bearing in mind that the investigation was
into a very senior police officer. So that not only was his integrity
under question, but also that of the police force to which he belongs."

EVALUATION
When a request for information is made, I must determine whether
exemptions should be applied and in the case of exemptions that are
qualified, establish whether release is in the public interest. Having
considered your request, I have found that both Section 40 (personal
information) and Section 30 (investigations and proceedings conducted by
public authorities) of the Act are applicable to the requested reports. I
have applied Section 40 of the Act in that release of the requested
reports would identify persons (i.e. namely witnesses and police officers)
that were connected to this investigation. I consider that this would be
unfair, as there has been no agreement made and/or there would be no
reasonable expectation, that their personal information would be made
available to the general public.

Section 30 of the Act is a qualified exemption and can be applied subject
to a public interest test. Having identified the factors relevant to the
public interest, I have carefully examined the importance of holding
public authorities to account for their actions in investigating the
conduct of their employees. This has been of particular importance when
considering your request, owing to the importance of openness and
transparency in cases of substantial public interest that involve senior
public officials. In considering your request, I have also evaluated the
damage that release would be likely to cause. In doing so, I have
carefully considered the effect release would have on future
investigations in view of the covert and confidential nature of parts of
the investigation. I have attached considerable weight to this as one of
the primary roles of any professional standards department is to
investigate allegations of inappropriate behaviour by police officers. I
have, in considering your request, also carefully examined whether release
would be fair to persons connected to this investigation and in particular
Mr Dizaei.

In considering any request for information, the balance between all
opposing interests must be found. In view of the likely effect that
release would have upon future investigations into alleged inappropriate
behaviour by police officers and the undue distress that release would
cause to persons connected to this investigation, I have found that
release is not in the public interest. I am accordingly unable to provide
the requested reports to you under these exemptions.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
the MPS.

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 230 5204 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Damion Baird
Information Manager
Directorate of Professional Standards
In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law. Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections