CAFCASS - perverting the course of justice

Dear V Munster

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011070002194
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14/07/2011. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Can you please explain why the Police refuse to register let alone
proceed to investigate cases of perjury or perverting the course of
justice by a CAFCASS guardian?.

I have attempted to have my complaint dealt with by two police stations
now only to find that senior officers are informing the 'desk' police
to return the files to me saying they cannot deal with it. In their
opinion the original Judge must investigate this crime, but I cannot
do that without legal aid now . I should not have to fight for legal aid
to have a crime investigated.

1. Is this information correct? can the Police simply refuse to register
and investigate a crime they are uncomfortable with. 2. Is the
Judge meant to interview witnesses or will he inform the Police to do
this?

All of the advice in this area is contradictory. The CPS enquiry service
and Home Office correspondence unit advised that it must be investigated
by the Police, so please confirm what is correct and if it is the Police,
supply some contact details within the Police force who will take some
responsibility to ensure they do it. "

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 Peter Deja on telephone number 02071613640 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
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, 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

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Dear Mr/Ms Munster

Freedom of Information Request Reference Number 2011070002194

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14th July 2011.

"Can you please explain why the Police refuse to register let alone
proceed to investigate cases of perjury or perverting the course justice
by a CAFCASS guardian? I have attempted to have my complaint dealt with by
two police stations now only to find that senior officers are informing
the 'desk' police to return the files to me saying they cannot deal with
it. In their opinion the original Judge must investigate this crime, but I
cannot do that without legal aid now. I should not have to fight for legal
aid to have a crime investigated.

1. Is this information correct? can the Police simply refuse to register
and investigate a crime they are uncomfortable with.

2. Is the Judge meant to interview witnesses or will he inform the Police
to do this?

All of the advice in this area is contradictory. The CPS enquiry service
and Home Office correspondence unit advised that it must be investigated
by the Police, so please confirm what is correct and if it is the Police,
supply some contact details within the Police force who will take some
responsibility to ensure they do it."

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at the Territorial Policing Headquarters - TP Criminal Justice.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located some records relevant to part of your request.

DECISION

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse access to the information you have
requested - please refer to the Legal Appendix below.

REASON FOR DECISION

The answer to your request can be found in the public domain.

All allegations of crime or crime related incidents should be recorded
when reported to police and a decision then taken as to whether the
allegation is investigated in accordance with MPS guidelines.

The following documents relate to the recording of an allegation of crime,
especially section 7:

Reporting of Crime SOP
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclo...

Reporting Crime Policy
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...

The following documents relate to whether an allegation of crime is
screened in for investigation:

Crime Screening SOP
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclo...

Crime Screening Policy
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/polici...

For further information please see the following links:

Home Office Counting Rules
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...

National Crime Recording Standard
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...

The National Standard for Incident Recording
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publication...
statistics/researchstatistics/crime-research/count-nsir11

With reference to your query regarding whether a Judge would interview a
witness or direct the police to do it, there is no information held on
this. However, a judge would not act outside the jurisdiction of his/her
court. Any criminal allegation requiring investigation would be passed to
the requisite authority for that investigation to be undertaken.

You may also find the following links useful:

CPS guidance on allegations of perjury
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/judic...

CAFCASS
http://www.cafcass.gov.uk/
http://www.cafcass.gov.uk/system_page/fr...

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 Deborah Solomon on telephone number 0207 161 4291 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

David Way
Acting Head of TP Criminal Justice
Territorial Policing Headquarters

LEGAL APPENDIX

Section 17(1) 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.

Section 21(1) of the Act provides:

(1) Information which is reasonably accessible to the application
otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information***
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

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Dear Mr Munster

Please note that the MPS FOIA reviewer can only review the response
previously sent to you from the perspective of legislative compliance,
and cannot comment upon whether the Police have followed the correct
investigation procedures. Can you please therefore confirm whether an
internal review is what you require.

Many Thanks

Deborah Solomon
Information Manager
Territorial Policing Headquarters

show quoted sections

Dear  V Munster

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011100004546

I write in connection with your letter dated 28th October 2011 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated 11th
August 2011 to your request for information relating to:

* I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police
Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'CAFCASS - perverting    
the course of justice'.  As requested I think an internal review may
be appropriate because from what I can see the response does not
reflect policy in practice and is therefore either wrong or needs
updating.        

The review will be conducted in accordance with the MPS complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 25th November
2011.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Mike Lyng on telephone number 02071613605 or at the address at the
top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
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, 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

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Dear V Munster

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011100004546

Further to our letter of 31st October 2011, I am now able to provide a
full response to your complaint dated 28th October 2011 concerning FOIA
complaint pertaining to closed case 2011070002194.

Your original Request (dated 13th July 2011)

Can you please explain why the Police refuse to register let alone proceed
to investigate cases of perjury or perverting the course of justice by a
CAFCASS guardian?.

I have attempted to have my complaint dealt with by two police stations
now only to find that senior officers are informing the 'desk' police to
return the files to me saying they cannot deal with it. In their opinion
the original Judge must investigate this crime, but I cannot do that
without legal aid now . I should not have to fight for legal aid to have a
crime investigated.
     
1. Is this information correct? can the Police simply refuse to register
and investigate a crime they are uncomfortable with.
     
2. Is the Judge meant to interview witnesses or will he inform the Police
to do this?
     
All of the advice in this area is contradictory. The CPS enquiry service
and Home Office correspondence unit advised that it must be investigated
by the Police, so please confirm what is correct and if it is the Police,
supply some contact details within the Police force who will take some
responsibility to ensure they do it.

Your email (dated 11 August 2011)

Thank you for your reply. The links were very useful indeed. Hopefully I
will not have any problems now.

Your email (dated 28 October 2011)

I am sorry to say that after waiting months for a response from CID I have
come full circle with the Police stating that they will only take
direction from the Judge on perjury and perverting the course of justice.
I have given them a copy of the response above but it has made no
difference.

Please can you give me a contact name and address for somebody who will
review this and decide if either Mr Ways response is incorrect or the
Police are not following the procedure that is described.

MPS Response to your email dated 28th October 2011

Please note that the MPS FOIA reviewer can only review the response
previously sent to you from the perspective of legislative compliance, and
cannot comment upon whether the Police have followed the correct
investigation procedures. Can you please therefore confirm whether an
internal review is what you require.

Your request for a Review (dated 28th October 2011)

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'CAFCASS - perverting the course of
justice'. As requested I think an internal review may be appropriate
because:

from what I can see the response does not reflect policy in practice and
is therefore either wrong or needs updating.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
 http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ca...

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to uphold the original decision to engage section 21 - Information
reasonably accessible by other means in relation to the first part of your
request; also uphold that no information is held in respect of the second
part of your request and additionally has engaged section 40(5) personal
information.

In accordance with The Code of Practice (Freedom Of Information Act 2000,
section 45), I would like to advise you that this complaint process
provides a fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions
taken pursuant to the Act, including decisions taken about where the
public interest lies in respect of exempt information. This enables a
fresh decision to be taken on a reconsideration of all the factors
relevant to the points you have raised.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act and other
references that are referred to in this letter.

Reasons for decision

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request for a review, I thought that it might assist you if I outline
the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
within which a request for information can be answered.  Section 1
 provides that 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 and (b) if that is the case to have that information communicated
to him.

I have considered your original request for information within the
provisions set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and have today
decided to uphold the original decision by David Way to engage section
21(1) in relation to question 1 and that no information held in respect of
question 2.   I hope to explain why in this case the MPS has engaged
Section 21(1) of the Act and additionally engaged section 40(5) of the
Act.

Decision in relation to the first part of this request

The review takes note in the first part of the request which states  'Can
you please explain why the Police refuse to register let alone proceed to
investigate cases of perjury or perverting the course of justice by a
CAFCASS guardian?.'  The original request also mentions 'I have attempted
to have my complaint dealt with by two police stations now only to find
that senior officers are informing the 'desk' police to return the files
to me saying they cannot deal with it. In their opinion the original Judge
must investigate this crime, but I cannot do that without legal aid now. I
should not have to fight for legal aid to have a crime investigated.'

The information in regards to this aspect of your request would, if held,
be considered personal data.  To confirm or deny whether personal
information exists in response to your request could publicly reveal
information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the
right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 1998.

The Metropolitan Police Service neither confirms nor denies that it holds
the information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following
exemption:

Section 40(5) - Personal Information / Absolute Exemption

When confirming or denying whether information is held would breach an
individual's rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, Section 40(5)
becomes an absolute exemption, and there is no requirement for me to
provide evidence of the prejudice that would occur, or to conduct a public
interest test.

Please note, this review decision does not confirm or deny whether the MPS
holds the information detailed in the first part of your request.

Decision in respect of the remaining part of this request

The review takes note of your comment in your request for a review 'from
what I can see the response does not reflect policy in practice and is
therefore either wrong or needs updating.'  In this respect the review is
aware that your area of interest is offences of perjury and perverting the
course of justice and the review will therefore focus on this aspect of
your request when looking at your original two questions, namely:

Question 1: can the Police simply refuse to register and investigate a
crime they are uncomfortable with.

The review is advised that where an allegation of perjury or perverting
the course of justice is made, police will need to consider whether the
elements of the offence are made out.  For perjury a person would have to
have made a false statement on oath in judicial proceedings.  Judicial
proceedings include a proceeding before any court or tribunal with power
to hear evidence on oath.  Perverting the course of justice is a course of
conduct with a tendency to pervert the course of public justice.  The
conduct can relate to civil or criminal proceedings. Further information
can be found by way of these public links:

Perjury (Perjury Act 1911)  
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5...  

Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) advice regarding perjury
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sente...

CPS advice regarding Perverting the course of public justice (Common Law)
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sente...

The review takes note of the original MPS refusal notice which states 'All
allegations of crime or crime related incidents should be recorded when
reported to police and a decision then taken as to whether the allegation
I investigated in accordance with MPS guidelines.'   A number of links
were also provided surrounding the reporting of crime and screening of
investigations.  Additional links were also provided on the national crime
recording standards and incident recording. The review takes note of the
advice provided with the links, in particular mention is made of item 7 of
the Report of crime Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) which states 'staff
employed on the front counters of police stations will conduct an initial
investigation of crime whenever an allegation is made to them...'  The
review also notes in the link under crime screening mentions 'In order to
prioritise the deployment of limited secondary investigative resources
decisions need to be made as to what crimes will be further investigated.
Such decisions are termed 'Crime Screening' and will be determined by
whether the crimes require mandatory secondary investigations because of
their serious nature or are detectable (solvable).  These decisions take
into account the need to safeguard public reassurance, to reduce fear of
crime and to secure potential detections.'

The link already provided to you entitled Home Office Counting Rules
indicates that the Home Office category of perjury and perverting the
course of justice both fall within the Category of notifiable 'other
offences.'

The review takes note of your comment 11th August 2011 'The links were
very useful indeed.' and is satisfied that together with the remaining
links provided the review finds that information relevant to your request
is reasonably accessible.

Question 2. Is the Judge meant to interview witnesses or will he inform
the Police to do this?

The review takes note of the advice provided to you in the original notice
which states that no relevant information is held in relation to your
specific request.  The review would like to advise you that requests under
the FoIA are for 'held' information at the time a request is made. Section
84(c) of FoIA states 'information' means information recorded in any form.
 A public authority is therefore not required to create information or
provide opinion in order to respond to a request under the Act, unless
such information is already recorded in documents.  The review is
therefore satisfied that no information is held for this aspect of your
request.  The review takes note of the advice provided to you 'However, a
judge would not act outside the jurisdiction of his/her court.  Any
criminal allegation requiring investigation would be passed to the
requisite authority for that investigation to be undertaken.'

The review takes note of the CPS link provided to you which states:

'Cases Involving Allegations of Perjury
Where a judge or magistrate believes that some evidence adduced at trial
is perjured s/he can recommend that there should be a police
investigation.
The absence of such recommendation does not mean that there is no
justification for an investigation. The only inference that can be drawn
from the absence of a recommendation is that the judge or magistrate does
not consider an investigation necessary.
Other than in an exceptional case (i.e. on the recommendation of the judge
or magistrate) a perjury investigation should not take place until the
conclusion of the proceedings in which the perjury is alleged to have
occurred.
Whether or not any suspected offence requires investigation is a matter
for the police to assess on the facts of each case.
In such cases:

*         the remarks of the judge or magistrate and the circumstances
involved must be carefully noted;
*         a report should be given immediately to the Unit Head via line
management;
*         all such reports must be treated with extreme care as a police
investigation will almost inevitably follow;  
*          the report of the investigation must be reported back briefly
to the judge/magistrate to allow for comment;
*         any such comment will be noted but the final decision will be
a matter for the CPS
*         Unit Heads will report any such matters to the CCP (Sector
Directors London). refer to Offences Against Public Justice elsewhere
in this guidance.'

For this part of your request the review is satisfied that, whilst no
information was located specific to your request, the MPS has provided you
with reasonable advice and assistance as would be relevant by virtue of
section 16 of FoIA.

I am aware this is not the response you wished to receive, but I hope the
above explanation, coupled with those previously provided, help you to
understand the reasons behind the MPS decision to engage section 21(1)
information reasonably accessible by other means also section 40(5)
personal information and that no information is held in respect of the
remaining part of your request. Additionally, I hope the advice provided
has proved useful to you.

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 1 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 of 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 that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 17(1) 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 of
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 that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 21 of the Act provides:

(1)Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise
than under section 1 is exempt information.

(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)-

(a)information may be reasonably accessible to the applicant even though
it is accessible only on payment, and

(b)information is to be taken to be reasonably accessible to the applicant
if it is information which the public authority or any other person is
obliged by or under any enactment to communicate (otherwise than by making
the information available for inspection) to members of the public on
request, whether free of charge or on payment.

(3)For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held by a
public authority and does not fall within subsection (2)(b) is not to be
regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the
information is available from the public authority itself on request,
unless the information is made available in accordance with the
authority's publication scheme and any payment required is specified in,
or determined in accordance with, the scheme.

Section 40(5) of the Act provides:

(5) The duty to confirm or deny-
(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held
by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of
subsection (1), and
(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent
that either-
(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial
that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart
from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section
10 of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the
exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or
(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that
Act (data subject's right to be informed whether personal data being
processed).

A copy of the Data Protection Act, for your information, can be viewed at
the following link:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukp...

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 161 3605 or at the address at the top of this
letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
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, 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

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).