Dear Sir or Madam,

as can be inferred from sources in the public domain, including
parliamentary statements, the Attorney General has been conducting
a preliminary investigation into the allegations of possible
criminal wrongdoing against Mr Binyam Mohammed.

It is my understanding that the Attorney General's Office has now
concluded this preliminary investigation and invited the
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to launch an
investigation.

I therefore request access to the following documents and records,
always including all appendices, annexes and other material filed
conjointly and concurrently.

- Final submission by the Director of Public Prosecutions

- Other correspondence received by the DPP

- Submissions, notes and correspondence sent to the AG by the CPS,
especially the Counter-Terrorism Division. I explicitly include
here the "copies of relevant papers" referred to in the letter from
the AG to the Commissioner of the MPS, if they have been submitted
either by the CPS or any other source to the Attorney General.

- Final summary of the preliminary investigation prepared by the
AG's office for the AG. With this generic term, I mean to cover all
documents that could be described as "briefing documents" prepared
for the use of the Attorney General as she was making her decision
on what next steps to take in this case after the end of the
investigation.

I hope that I have clarified my request enough as to facilitate
your internal search and to ensure that my request is covered by
the cost limit. Should that, however, not be the case, I'd be
grateful for any assistance as to how I can narrow down my request,
especially through the provision of a schedule of the records held.

I am aware that several exceptions may apply to the records
requested and therefore I'd ask you to clearly specify for each
exemption (in case you cite any), to which record (or class of
records) it applies.

Last, I would ask you pursuant to section 16 of the FOIA and the
relevant sections of the Code of Practice, to provide me with an
outline or index of all records you hold with relevance to the
"Binyam Mohammed" investigation. This request is however secondary
in importance to my requests above and if (though only if) it is
not possible to answer all my requests due to the cost limit
provisions, I shall ask you to disregard my Section 16 request.

Yours faithfully,

Michael Bimmler

Dear Sir or Madam,

further to my FOI request, the second class of records searched
should of course read

"- Other correspondence received FROM the DPP" (received by the
AGO, from the DPP).

I apologise for this oversight.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Bimmler

Thank you for your email of 11 May requesting information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Specifically you asked for:

* Final submission by the Director of Public Prosecutions;
* Other correspondence received from the DPP;
* Submissions, notes and correspondence sent to the AG by the CPS,
especially the Counter-Terrorism Division. I explicitly include here
the "copies of relevant papers" referred to in the letter from the AG
to the Commissioner of the MPS, if they have been submitted either by
the CPS or any other source to the Attorney General;
* Final summary of the preliminary investigation prepared by the AG's
office for the AG. With this generic term, I mean to cover all
documents that could be described as "briefing documents" prepared for
the use of the Attorney General as she was making her decision on what
next steps to take in this case after the end of the investigation.

I will contact you again once your request has been considered. I am
aiming to send a response to you by 11 June i.e. 20 working days from the
day after we received your request. If possible, I will of course reply
sooner.

Yours sincerely

Tim Strevens
FOI Team
Attorney General's Office
(020) 7271 2492

show quoted sections

Mr Bimmler

Please find attached reply to your FOI request of 11 May.

Yours sincerely

Tim Strevens
Nominations Team
Attorney General's Office
(020) 7271 2492

show quoted sections

Dear Tim Strevens,

thank you for your letter of 11 June. First of all, let me say how
I appreciate the consideration you have given to this request, the
quality of your reply indicates that you have studied in a quite
detailed manner.

Nonetheless I am afraid that I have to disagree with your
conclusions and would therefore ask you to submit this case for
Internal Review.

With reference to your first (replying) paragraph, I take note that
your office no longer holds these documents and as you correctly
point out, I have made requests to, inter alia, the Crown
Prosecution Service for the documents.

I note that you rely on several exemptions which I shall discuss in
turn:

1. Section 31 (1) (c)

Section 31 (1) (c) considers the administration of justice. I have
looked at the ICO's "Awareness Guidance Number 17" which on page 3
states the following:

"Administering justice. This covers a wide variety of matters that
surround any type of judicial body and its administrative support.
It will include the
administrative arrangements of the courts and tribunals, the
appointment of magistrates and judges and the requirement to
conduct proceedings fairly. It
will cover arrangements for the care of witnesses, the transport of
defendants in custody and the service and execution of process and
orders in civil cases.
Consideration of the many Administration of Justice Acts gives an
indication of the size of the area this covers."

I must say that I cannot see how this exemption could possibly
apply here. First, I wonder which entity you consider a "judicial
body" for these purposes. In your more detailed account of the
Public Interest Test you carried out with reference to this
exemption, you often refer to "courts". However, no court is
currently involved with this case to my knowledge, and neither the
Attorney General's Office, nor the Director of Public Prosecutions,
nor the Crown Prosecution Service nor the Metropolitan Police
Service can, in my opinion, be considered a "judicial body" because
none of them is actually involved in direct "administration of
justice" - they either provide legal advice to the government, or
are involved with criminal prosecutions, or with law enforcement,
none of which is "administration of justice". Already for this
reason, the application of this exemption is invalid.

Now, even it is held that the aforementioned entities are "judicial
bodies", I point out that the documents I requested would still not
relate to the "administration of justice" part of the functions of
these offices. The documents are concerned with a preliminary
investigation carried out by the Attorney General which resulted in
a referral of the matter to the Commissioner of the Metropolis who
will commence his own investigation which may or may not at some
time result in a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service in order
to bring criminal charges or other proceedings. However, no such
investigation is ongoing, your claim that it may "prejudice the
ongoing police investigation" may be correct but is irrelevant, for
a police investigation does not fall under the term of
"administration of justice". Furthermore, you have failed to point
out at all in what way any hypothetical future criminal proceedings
could be influenced by the release of material now.

Last, even if it is held that the current and finished
investigations are concerned with the "administration of justice"
and that therefore the exemption is prima facie applicable, I argue
that the Public Interest Test has not been applied reasonably. As
you will acknowledge, it is one of the vital elements of a
democratic society and of the rule of law, that judicial
proceedings are open and public, in order to avoid secret courts
such as the "Star Chamber". This especially holds true in a case
which has already attracted such high public and press interest and
which touches upon the very foundations of human rights, namely,
the right not to be tortured. Taking into consideration that
Britain is bound by several provisions of international law, not
least the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention
Against Torture, in that matter, there is an immense and
over-riding public interest to know whether Her Majesty's
Government has obliged these treaty provisions and whether the
serious allegations of British involvement or condonement of
torture have any merit. While it is not even substantiated by you,
in what way any future or ongoing proceedings might be prejudiced
by the release of these preliminary results, I hold that the public
interest in the (legality of) the behaviour of British civil and
military servants certainly weighs higher. Therefore, the Public
Interest Test has been misapplied and the exemption, if it is even
applicable, must be disregarded in favour of the public interest.

2. Section 42 (1)

You describe that "some of the information" may be covered by the
legal professional privilege. It would be helpful for me if you
could set out which records you deem this exemption to apply to and
which not and why you think that it applied to these specific
records. Only then could I comment on whether the LPP is even
engaged in this instance. I assume that you are only relying on the
legal advice privilege here, but if you also relay on the
litigation privilege, please do indicate this.

Barring the possibility of detailed comments on the applicability
of LPP, I can at this stage only reiterate my comment from point 1,
viz. even if the legal professional privilege is engaged in this
case, the overriding public interest as briefly discussed above
leads to the conclusion that this exemption should not be applied.

3. Section 35 (1) (c)

I am afraid I am not convinced that this exemption applies at all
in the first place. As you pointed out in your reply, the documents
held by the Attorney General's Office are "advice provided by the
Director of Public Prosecutions" and "internal briefing documents
prepared for the Attorney General". The Director of Public
Prosecutions is plainly not one of the Law Officers and advice
provided by him does not fall under this exemption. Further, the
exemption only covers advice provided by the Law Officers
themselves, it does not include their staff. Even more importantly,
it applies to advice provided by the Law Officers to the Government
(refer ICO Awareness Guidance 24) - advice provided by officials in
the Attorney General's Office to the Attorney General is thus not
covered. The documents are also clearly not concerned with the
provision of prosecution policy to the CPS.

But even if the documents are held to be covered by the exception,
there is again an overriding case to be made for the public
interest in their disclosure. I am grateful here for information in
the above cited Awareness Guidance which recalls that "In the
Factortame litigation in the 1990s, their advice on the legality of
Spanish owned vessels fishing in British waters was disclosed to
the Courts and can be accessed by the public at the House of Lords
Records Office." Without intending to diminish the importance of
the Factortame litigation, I suggest that the possible involvement
of British subjects and officers in torture is even more important
to the public than conflicts between domestic and European
Community law. Thus, if the advice regarding Factortame has been
disclosed, there is clear precedent for disclosure and disclosure
is merited in this case.

In summary, I conclude that none of the exemptions are applicable
or that, if they are applicable, they should not be relied on
because of overriding public interest. I therefore ask you to
overturn your decision upon review and to disclose the documents
held by your office.

I look forward to hearing from you and will gladly discuss any
questions on this case!

Yours sincerely,

Michael Bimmler

Dear Mr Strevens,

further to my email of June 11th, I would be very grateful for a
short confirmation that you received my Internal Review request,
setting out the procedure and timeframe which you plan to apply to
it.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Bimmler

Mr Bimmler

My apologies for the delay in acknowledging receipt of your email of 11
June which I confirm we have received..

Mr Jonathan Jones will write to you once your internal review request has
been considered. He will aim to send a response to you by 9 July i.e. 20
working days from the day we received your request.

Yours sincerely

Tim Strevens
FOI Team
Attorney General's Office
(020) 7271 2492

show quoted sections

Mr Bimmler

Please find attached reply to your request for an internal review.

Yours sincerely

Tim Strevens
FOI Team
Attorney General's Office
(020) 7271 2492

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Strevens,

thank you for your email which includes the reply to my Internal
Review request of which I acknowledge receipt. I shall consider the
response now and then decide whether I shall take further action
(ie. a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office).

Thank you for your helpful assistance in this case.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Bimmler