Arrest of Mr Green MP and search of his offices

Dear Mr Bimmler

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120000345
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 01/12/2008. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Please provide me with all information held by the Metropolitan Police
Service with regards to the arrest of Mr Damian Green MP and to the
search of his office in the Palace of Westminster.
* In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/polit... a statement
of the speaker's office is quoted as "There is a process to be
followed and that was followed." Please provide me with all
information and records you possess on this process in general and on
how it was applied in the specific instance of Mr Green's case. If a
written application (or a letter in lieu) has been made to the House
authorities (including the speaker) in order to gain permission to
enter the premises of the Palace of Westminster and to conduct a
search therein, please provide this application and all correspondence
related to and derived from it.
* If any other written correspondence between the Metropolitan Police
and House authorities (including the Speaker) or other agencies exists
which concerns this case, I would like to request access to it too.
* Furthermore, I wish to ask whether a written authorisation of the
search of Mr Green's office exists which has been signed by the
Speaker or another member of the House staff and which has been
transferred to and is now in possession of the Metropolitan Police
Service. Authorisation in this context refers to any document, letter
or part of such document or letter that explicitly or implicitly
gives the Metropolitan Police the permission to enter the premises of
Parliament and conduct a search there. "Explicit or implicit"
permission includes a letter or other document that simply refers to
legal provisions eg. by outlining why a specific permission is not
necessary.
* Please note that my most comprehensive request is stated by and in the
first paragraph, while the latter paragraphs merely try to clarify
in which documents I am especially interested but they do not reduce
the scope of the first request.

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.

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

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

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Shannon Aldridge on telephone number 020 7161 3527
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Shannon Aldridge
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 three months.
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 Mr Bimmler

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120000345

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 1 December 2008. I note you
seek access to the following information:

please provide me with all information held by the Metropolitan Police
Service with regards to the arrest of Mr Damian Green MP and to the search
of his office in the Palace of Westminster.

In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/polit... a
statement of the speaker's office is quoted as "There is a process
to be followed and that was followed." Please provide me with all
information and records you possess on this process in general and
on how it was applied in the specific instance of Mr Green's case.
If a written application (or a letter in lieu) has been made to the
House authorities (including the speaker) in order to gain
permission to enter the premises of the Palace of Westminster and
to conduct a search therein, please provide this application and
all correspondence related to and derived from it.

If any other written correspondence between the Metropolitan Police
and House authorities (including the Speaker) or other agencies
exists which concerns this case, I would like to request access to
it too.

Furthermore, I wish to ask whether a written authorisation of the
search of Mr Green's office exists which has been signed by the
Speaker or another member of the House staff and which has been
transferred to and is now in possession of the Metropolitan Police
Service. Authorisation in this context refers to any document,
letter or part of such document or letter that explicitly or
implicitly gives the Metropolitan Police the permission to enter
the premises of Parliament and conduct a search there. "Explicit or
implicit" permission includes a letter or other document that
simply refers to legal provisions eg. by outlining why a specific
permission is not necessary.

Please note that my most comprehensive request is stated by and in
the first paragraph, while the latter paragraphs merely try to
clarify in which documents I am especially interested but they do
not reduce the scope of the first request.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless there is a fee to pay
or where 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 questions). If we are considering the public interest test
we can respond within 'such time as is reasonable in the circumstances'
under Section 10 of the Act.

We are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested, including Section 30(1) - Investigations.
As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

I now advise you that the amended date for a response is 16 February 2009.
Every effort will be made to respond within this new timescale and you
will receive a reply as soon as possible.

In the meantime the links below refer to information that is already
published that might be of interest to you and assist with your enquiry.

https://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/state...

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/uploa...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7...

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Gill Brown on 0207 230 2401 or at the address at the top of this
letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Alan Mitchell
Detective Chief Superintendent

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 Mr Bimmler

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120000345

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 1 December 2008. I note you
seek access to the following information:

Please provide me with all information held by the Metropolitan Police
Service with regards to the arrest of Mr Damian Green MP and to the search
of his office in the Palace of Westminster.

In http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/polit... a
statement of the speaker's office is quoted as "There is a process
to be followed and that was followed." Please provide me with all
information and records you possess on this process in general and
on how it was applied in the specific instance of Mr Green's case.
If a written application (or a letter in lieu) has been made to the
House authorities (including the speaker) in order to gain
permission to enter the premises of the Palace of Westminster and
to conduct a search therein, please provide this application and
all correspondence related to and derived from it.

If any other written correspondence between the Metropolitan Police
and House authorities (including the Speaker) or other agencies
exists which concerns this case, I would like to request access to
it too.

Furthermore, I wish to ask whether a written authorisation of the
search of Mr Green's office exists which has been signed by the
Speaker or another member of the House staff and which has been
transferred to and is now in possession of the Metropolitan Police
Service. Authorisation in this context refers to any document,
letter or part of such document or letter that explicitly or
implicitly gives the Metropolitan Police the permission to enter
the premises of Parliament and conduct a search there. "Explicit or
implicit" permission includes a letter or other document that
simply refers to legal provisions eg. by outlining why a specific
permission is not necessary.

Please note that my most comprehensive request is stated by and in
the first paragraph, while the latter paragraphs merely try to
clarify in which documents I am especially interested but they do
not reduce the scope of the first request.

Before I explain the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I
thought that it would be helpful to outline the parameters set out by the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for
information can be answered.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to
information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a
request must, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether
it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that
information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is unsuitable for release. Importantly the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I
am not required by statute to release the information requested. This
letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS 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.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, 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 assumed the disclosure of
information would result in harm. There is therefore no requirement to
demonstrate what that 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, to determine the
likelihood of it occurring.

Section 30 (1)(a) - Investigations and Proceedings conducted by Public
Authorities: Qualified Exemptions/Class Based

Under Section 30(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Public
Authorities are able to withhold information if it has, at any time, been
held by the authority for the purposes of any investigation with a view to
it being ascertained whether a person should be charged with an offence.

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 PIT to determine
whether release of the requested report is in the public interest. This
exemption is also class based. I am accordingly not required to
demonstrate what harm would result from disclosure.

Section 31 Law Enforcement

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice***
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice,

Section 31 is a prejudice based and qualified exemption. As such, I am
required to provide you with a harm test and a public interest test.

HARM

The information you have requested is held for the purpose of conducting
current and future police investigations. The investigation concerned is
on-going. To release the information you have requested would jeopardise
the status of the case, as the MPS would be making sensitive information
on the case public. To do so would compromise the purpose for which the
information is obtained and held in terms of those who may be involved or
assisting with this case.

Providing the information requested would make policing tactics,
methodology and investigative techniques publicly available to the world.
Those with criminal intent (whether connected to this case or not) could
use this information to gain a tactical advantage over the MPS.

Releasing information provided by third parties would break the trust and
relationship the MPS has worked hard to build with relevant parties. To do
so may impact on the current and future investigations if the public feel
that the MPS do not respect the duty of confidence in which the
information was provided. Should the public start to withhold information
based on that belief, this will impact on our core function of law
enforcement and in turn endanger the public.

Public Interest Considerations Favouring Disclosure

Accountability

The MPS is a public authority and should be held to account for its
actions and the conduct of its employees. The release of additional
information will enable the public to hold the MPS accountable for its
decisions and actions. There is a public interest in accountability where
public funds are being spent. To provide the requested information would
give insight into how much time has been spent on the investigation which
in turn promotes transparency

Public Awareness/Debate

Where disclosure can assist individuals by raising awareness of issues
that may be of relevance to them. This could empower then to make more
effective decisions about their own activities or contribute to more
accurate public debate

Actions of Public Officials

If information shows that public officials have made poor or abused their
office, then the public should be provided with the facts.

Public Participation

The Police Service is committed to building closer relationships with the
communities it polices, of which an important part is to share information
of public interest. The release of the requested information would
demonstrate that the MPS has an open relationship with the general public
and is prepared to engage it in matters of public interest.

Public Confidence

The general public expect the highest standards of professionalism in the
delivery of policing services by the MPS.

Public Interest Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure

Investigations

The release of details of an investigation will invariably release
personal information, law enforcement techniques and in the case of
uncompleted cases potentially damage the criminal justice process. The
release of this information could enable those under investigation to take
steps to avoid identification and would therefore have an adverse impact
on the ability of the police to conduct successful investigations

Efficient and Effective Conduct of the MPS

During the course of any investigation, enquires are made to secure
evidence that may lead to a conviction. These enquires are made throughout
the investigation and are based upon proven investigative methods as well
as the judgment and experience of the officers involved in the
investigation. Releasing the information requested would mean publishing
policing tactics, methodology and investigative techniques. Those with
criminal intent may use this information to avoid detection and
apprehension in terms of this investigation as well as non-related
investigations. It cannot be in the public interest to release information
that would provide a tactical advantage to those with criminal intent.
This would affect not only the MPS' ability to police effectively, but
other forces as well in terms of methodology.

Information Provided in Confidence

During the course of any investigation, information is provided by parties
in order to assist the police in their enquiries. Much of this information
is provided in confidence and upon the understanding that its use was to
be restricted to the police investigation. There would be no reasonable
expectation on behalf of those that have provided information to the
police, that this information would be released publicly for a purpose
unconnected to police work. Release of this information would accordingly,
be in breach of the confidence associated with its provision and would be
unfair to those parties that have provided it.

Flow of Information to the Service

The Police Service is reliant upon the provision of information from the
general public to effectively investigate whether a crime has taken place.
This exchange of information is made upon the basis that the information
received by the Police Service is confidential and restricted to a
policing purpose. The public release of information provided in confidence
by the general public would inhibit the ability of the Police Service to
obtain information in connection with future investigations, as those that
provide information may not approve of its public release.

EVALUATION

You have requested that I disclosure information in relation to the
investigation that included the arrest of Damian Green MP. In response
to your request, I have confirmed under Section 1(a) of the Act that the
requested information is held by the MPS and have, in relation to my
requirement under Section 1(b) of the Act to provide this report to you,
refused release in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.

In refusing your request, I have cited Section 30 (1) (a) and Section
31(1) as exemptions that prohibit the release of the report.

In considering what effect release of the report would have, I have, in
accordance with Section 30 and 31 of the Act, conducted a Public Interest
Test to determine whether release is in the public interest. Having
identified and considered the factors relevant to the public interest, I
have felt it important to attribute particular importance to holding
public authorities to public account for their actions and those of their
staff. This has been central when considering your request, owing to the
allegations made regarding police conduct in connection with this case. I
have also carefully considered the importance of providing the general
public with the known facts regarding this incident owing to the nature of
the allegations made against police, and the importance of demonstrating
to the public that the circumstances surrounding these events have been
fully investigated.

In considering whether to disclose the requested information, I have
evaluated the damage that release would be likely to cause. I have
carefully considered the effect that the public release of information
held in connection with this investigation would have on any future
investigation and/or proceedings regarding this matter and the effect that
the release of information provided in confidence, would have on the
ability of the MPS to obtain information in connection with future
investigations. I have attached considerable weight to this as one of the
primary roles of any Police Service is to detect crime and to apprehend
and prosecute offenders.

In considering any request for information, the balance between all
opposing interests must be found. Having carefully considered your
request, I have found that while there is clear interest shown by the
public and media in this case, the wider public interest is most clearly
served by ensuring that information is withheld where its release could
jeopardise any ongoing investigation or proceedings. Having considered and
weighed up the competing interests raised by your request, I regret
therefore, that I am unable to provide the requested information to you
under this exemption.

Yours sincerely

Gill Brown
Information Manager

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 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 Mr Bimmler

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009020005471

I write in connection with your letter dated 22 February 2009 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated 20
April 2009 to your request for information relating to:

* FOI original case number 2008120000345.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 20 April
2009.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review 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 Mr Bimmler,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009020005471

I would first like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in providing a case status update to you. Due to a administrative error you were not provided with an update earlier.

We have unfortunately been unable to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

FOI original number: 2008120000345

I hope to complete your review no later than 4 May 2009. Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as possible.

Once again I do apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

S. Pallen
Freedom of Information Team
Policy, Research, Review Officer

Metropolitan Police Service
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

show quoted sections

Dear Mr. Bimmler,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009020005471

Further to our letter of 23/02/2009, I am now able to provide a response
to your complaint concerning:

* Review of case 2008120000345.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:

* Uphold the original decision

The purpose of this review was to assess the original decision made by
Gill Brown in her response dated 13 February 2009. Since I have been
working on this review there have been significant changes in the status
of the investigation. Recently the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr.
Starmer announced that no charges would be brought in respect of this
matter. In light of this statement the MPS are currently considering the
publication of an independent review into the arrest of Mr. Green. Once
this review has been published we intend to place it on our publication
scheme. If you would like us to contact you once this information is
publicly available, please let me know and I will be happy to oblige.

REASON FOR DECISION

On 13 February 2009, Gill Brown confirmed to you that the information
requested was held in accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Act. Ms.
Brown went on to consider the duty to communicate the requested
information which is imposed on the MPS by virtue of Section 1(1)(b).

While considering disclosure of the information Ms. Brown identified the
following exemptions:

Section 30(1) Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public
Authorities
Section 31(1) Law Enforcement

In Ms. Brown's original response she evidenced Harm, in respect of Section
31(1), and Public Interest Considerations in respect of both sections
30(1) and 31(1). I have reviewed these considerations and agree with both
the content and the conclusions drawn.

In addition to Ms Brown's Public Interest Considerations for
non-disclosure, I would like to add that the likelihood of potential
damage to the criminal justice process would vary over time. In this
instance the investigation is relatively new and therefore I have
attributed substantial weight to this factor.

I note that you have requested a schedule of withheld records. I can only
assume that you are referring to withheld records that fall under the
scope of your request. Under the Freedom of Information Act you have a
right of access to information held by public authorities. The Act places
no obligation on the MPS to create information as a result of a request.
In this instance I have decided not to create a schedule of documents
that are exempt from disclosure.

ISSUES IDENTIFIED

Having reviewed the response sent to you on 13 February 2009 I have
identified an error in the refusal notice. Ms. Brown failed to identify
which parts of your request Section 30(1) has been applied to and which
parts are exempt under Section 31(1). Please accept my apologies for this
error. I can now confirm that Section 31(1) was applied in respect of
your request for "all information and records (the MPS) possess on this
process in general". The remainder of the requested information is exempt
by virtue of Section 30(1).

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 3583 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

David Edwards
FOIA Quality and Assurance Advisor
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