Cases Removed From the Harmondsworth Detained Fast Track Procedure

isaac shaffer made this Freedom of Information request to UK Border Agency

Waiting for an internal review by UK Border Agency of their handling of this request.

From: isaac shaffer

24 February 2010

Dear UK Border Agency,

Please can you provide a breakdown of all the cases taken out of
the Harmondsworth Detained Fast Track during the last 12 months, or
during the most recent period in which this data is available.
Provide this number with reference to the total number included
within the DFT scheme during this period (e.g. as a percentage).

Please break those cases taken out further, into the reasons for
releasing the individuals from the DFT scheme -i.e. Medical
Foundation Referral, Health Grounds, Complexity/Unsuitability of
case for DFT etc.

Yours faithfully,

Isaac Shaffer

Link to this

From: Freedom Of Information Team ( IND )
UK Border Agency

25 February 2010

Dear Isaac Shaffer

Re FOI 14128 Cases Removed From the Harmondsworth Detained Fast Track
Procedure (296380)

Thank you for your recent e-mail concerning the above matter. Your
request is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and we will respond shortly.

Kind Regards

UKBA
FOI Team

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Logo, Mensah

12 March 2010


Attachment FOI response 14128.doc
22K Download View as HTML


<<FOI response -14128.doc>> Mr Shaffer,

The response to your request is herewith attached.

Mensah Logo

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: isaac shaffer

15 March 2010

Dear Logo, Mensah,

Thank you for your response - which I consider to have partially
answered my FOI request.

However the categories: Other: 126(7.19%) and Policy : 30 (1.71%)
are vague and unclear. As detailed below, please clarify your
response.

(i) "Policy"

Could you please specify all such policies as referred to, (and as
requested initially) - providing data upon how often such policies
are applied as a percentage.

(ii) Other

You indicated in your response that a large percentage of those
removed from the DFT are specified as 'Other'; this is a vague
response (particularly given the high number categorised as such)
and seems at odds with your relevant obligations.

Please therefore break this category down into it's constituent
parts - and (as initially requested) provide the relevant data
expressed as a percentage.

Yours sincerely,

isaac shaffer

Link to this

From: Logo, Mensah

16 March 2010

Mr Shaffer

You may wish to refer to my response and direct your fresh request to the appropriate unit.

Thanks

Mensah Logo

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: isaac shaffer

24 March 2010

Dear Logo, Mensah,

Does your further response of the 16 March 2010 indicate that you
will not provide the clarification requested, and therefore are
effectively inviting a request for an internal review?

If not, who is the 'appropriate unit' to which you refer?

If it is the case that you are not willing to provide such further
information, could you please offer an explanation as to why this
is the case; and indeed how you consider this refusal accords with
your obligations under the Freedom of Information Act?

Yours sincerely,

isaac shaffer

Link to this

From: isaac shaffer

27 April 2010

Dear Logo, Mensah,

I request an internal review of this evasive response to my clear
and precise request for information.

Yours sincerely,

isaac shaffer

Link to this

From: Logo, Mensah

27 April 2010

Thank you for your email. I am out of the office until 4.5.2010.

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: isaac shaffer

2 June 2010

Dear Logo, Mensah,

I repeat my earlier request for an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

isaac shaffer

Link to this

From: Logo, Mensah

2 June 2010

Dear Mr Issac Shaffer

I forwarded your request to the appropriate unit. You may wish to write to the address on the original response.

Yours sincerely

Mensah Logo

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: isaac shaffer

2 June 2010

Dear Logo, Mensah,

Please advise on what date this request was forwarded to the unit
in question.

It seems that there has been a delay well outside the 20 day limit
for the conclusion of this review.

In that case, why haven't the details of this review been published
accordingly?

Yours sincerely,

isaac shaffer

Link to this

From: Logo, Mensah

2 June 2010

I do not remember the precise date but I believe it was in April.

show quoted sections

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
UK Border Agency only: