Dear Sir or Madam,

I wish to make a request for information under the provisions of
the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I wish to know how many cases have been heard by David Fletcher at
the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre since his appointment
there.

Of those cases heard, I wish to know how many resulted in a
custodial sentence.

I also wish to know how many times David Fletcher has refused to
refer cases to the Crown Court for sentencing when the the Crown
Prosecutor has requested they be so referred.

I would ask that you remember the Act’s Section 16 duty on public
authorities to provide advice and assistance to requesters. If for
any reason you are leaning toward rejecting any part of this
request or if you plan to argue that it is unmanageable or
unanswerable in any way then I would expect you to contact me
promptly to find ways to answer this request to our mutual
satisfaction.

I would ask that you release any available data as soon as possible
rather than wait for all available data to be collated before
sending me an answer. I would also be grateful if you could confirm
in writing that you have received this request via this website,
and I look forward to hearing from you within the 20-working day
statutory time period.

Yours faithfully,

Stephen Gradwick

Dear Mr Gradwick,

I refer to your email dated 12 August 2008, requesting the following information under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act:

"I wish to know how many cases have been heard by David Fletcher at the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre since his appointment there.

Of those cases heard, I wish to know how many resulted in a custodial sentence.

I also wish to know how many times David Fletcher has refused to refer cases to the Crown Court for sentencing when the Crown Prosecutor has requested they be so referred"

I can confirm that the Department holds some information relating to your request.

At the out set I should explain that Judge David Fletcher is the single resident Judge based at the Community Justice Centre North Liverpool.

In relation to the first limb of your request, I can confirm that between September 2005 and July 2008 the Centre has dealt with a total of 6,407 cases and majority of these cases were dealt by Judge Fletcher. However, we are unable to exclude any cases that were dealt by the other Judges while Judge Fletcher had been on leave. To do so would be extremely resource intensive as it would require the Department to interrogate the Centre's databases and court files. It would also require specialised queries to be written and then for further analysis to be undertaken.

We believe that the cost of collating the raw data would take considerably longer than the 'appropriate limit' set out in the Act. Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act makes provision for public authorities to refuse requests for information where the cost of dealing with them would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central Government is set at £600, which represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3 ½ working days in determining whether the Department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

We estimate that it will take us more than 3½ days to locate, retrieve and extract the information requested. Your request exceeds the cost limit and is therefore refused on that basis.

Furthermore, there is no duty to extract raw data, analyse it and create new information in order to respond to a request for information. The Information Commissioner has confirmed this to be the case in one of his decision notices, a copy of which is accessible at the following link:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/d...

In relation to the second limb of your request, I should explain that custodial sentences imposed by the courts within England and Wales are currently collected and published nationally by the Home Office and are not broken down to the level of a local court. However, since April 2008 the Community Justice Centre North Liverpool has introduced a system for recording this information, and I can confirm that during the period April 2008 - July 2008 11% of the people sentenced by the court received an immediate custodial sentence. This relates to both adults and youths.

With regard to how many times Judge Fletcher has refused to refer cases to the Crown Court for sentencing when the Crown Prosecutor has requested they be so referred. I can confirm that the Department does not hold the information. The Crown Prosecution Service may hold the information and you may if you wish write to them direct at the following address:

The Freedom of Information
CPS Headquarters
50 Ludgate Hill
London EC4M 7EX

[email address]

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request, you have the right to ask for an internal review. You should submit an internal review request within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and you should address it to: Access Rights Unit, Selborne House, Point 6.17, 54 Victoria Street, London SW1P6 QT

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision. You can contact The Information Commissioner at: Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF

If you have any queries about your request please contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Joan Porter
Acting Centre Manager
Community Justice Centre North Liverpool

Freedom of Information User Survey

The Constitution Unit, a research body at University College London, is carrying out an independent evaluative study of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in co-operation with a number of public authorities, including the Ministry of Justice. An important part of the evaluation process is gathering the experiences and opinions of FOI requesters like you. Any information you provide will only be seen by the Constitution Unit and will be handled in accordance with its privacy policy explained in the survey. The Ministry of Justice will only see the published results: no individual
responses will be visible to us and your participation will have no effect on your future dealings with the Ministry.

If you would like to take part in this study, please click the following link to be taken directly to the survey: http://www.tinyurl.com/2q4ll8. Or, if you prefer, contact Ben Worthy at [email address] or on 020 7679 4974 to ask more about the study.

If you have filled this survey out before, we invite you to fill it out again in light of the recent response to your request.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Dear Rachael Lewis,

Thank you for your reply, I have noted your comments.

I am in the process of drafting a request for internal review, but
would in the interim be grateful if you would confirm where in the
legislation is there a stipulation that any request for internal
review be submitted within two months?

Furthermore, as you have stated that any request for internal
review should be submitted to the postal address given in your
response, does that mean that the Ministry of Justice will not
respond to a request for internal review submitted through this
website?

I look forward to your prompt response to both of those questions.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Gradwick

Dear Mr Gradwick

I have sent your query to our relevant policy department and they will contact you directly with a reply.

In the meantime if you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,

Rachael Lewis

Communications Officer
Community Justice Centre

*0151 2983643

[email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Gradwick,

I refer to your email to Rachael Lewis in which you queried about time limit on the right to request an internal review of a response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Your request was passed to me for reply.

I have attached below a link to a Parliamentary Question [158198] which was tabled by Eric Pickles MP to Michael Wills, Minister of State to the Ministry of Justice, which I trust will answer your question.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

Kind regards

Amrit Lotay (Ms)
Access Rights Unit
Information Rights Division
6th Floor, Selborne House
MoJ Freedom of Information

(Tel: 020 7210 2190

show quoted sections

Dear Amrit Lotay

As you will see if you actually bother to read my original request
for clarification, I asked TWO questions and you have only
responded to one.

I must ask - [personal information removed], why you are being so
unhelpful and in my view obstructive?

The second question I raised which you have not answered stated
"Furthermore, as you have stated that any request for internal
review should be submitted to the postal address given in your
response, does that mean that the Ministry of Justice will not
respond to a request for internal review submitted through this
website?".

Please explain why you did not answer the question above and
whether or not you intend to do so and please also explain why you
are being so obstructive and personally offensive in respect of the
requests I have made.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Gradwick

Dear Mr Gradwick,

In response to your email dated 12 September 2008 in which you ask;

''as you have stated that any request for internal review should be
submitted to the postal address given in your response, does that mean
that the Ministry of Justice will not respond to a request for internal
review submitted through this website?"

I have tried to call you on a couple of occasions without success. I
confirm that a request for internal review must be made directly to the
Access Rights Unit, Selborne House, Point 6.17, 54 Victoria Street,
London SW1P6 QT and not via an intermediary. I further confirm that the
Ministry of Justice will consider your request for internal review in
accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I apologise if
this was not clear in our original email.

Kind regards,

Rachael Lewis

Communications Officer
Community Justice Centre

*0151 2983643

[email address]

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Dear Rachael Lewis,

I note your comments about being unable to contact me by telephone,
but would point out that when you spoke with a member of my family,
they explained that you should call in the morning just after 9am
when I would definitely be at home and available to take your call.
Yet according to the log of incoming telephone numbers on my
telephone, you chose to call on the 12/9 at 15.33, (your previously
logged call having been at 17.27 on 11/9).

This could possibly account for why you were unable to speak to me.

Nevertheless, regarding the statement in your response that "I
confirm that a request for internal review must be made directly to
the Access Rights Unit, Selborne House, Point 6.17, 54 Victoria
Street, London SW1P6 QT and not via an intermediary", I must
disagree with you.

I have spoken this morning with a very helpful advisor at the
Information Commissioner's Office (01625 545745 @ 10.15am)
regarding your contention that a review must be submitted in the
manner you have described and I have been informed that should I
wish to submit a request via the WhatDoTheyKnow website, then I am
free to do so and it would be a perfectly valid request.

Therefore, before I post my request for review on this website, I
would be grateful if you would explain why you are not only
providing information which is false and misleading, but why you
are attempting to obstruct me from making my request for review
public.

I look forward to hearing from you - via this website.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Gradwick

Dear Mr Gradwick

If you wish to submit a request for an internal review through this
website the email address is as follows:
[email address]

Kind regards,

Rachael Lewis

Communications Officer
Community Justice Centre

show quoted sections

Dear Rachael Lewis,

You have previously stated that "a request for internal review must
be made directly to the Access Rights Unit, Selborne House, Point
6.17, 54 Victoria Street, London SW1P6 QT and not via an
intermediary".

However, I notice that now I have challenged the legality of your
statement, you have changed your mind about what I 'must' do and
and given me version two.

I have already asked you to explain "why you are not only providing
information which is false and misleading, but why you are
attempting to obstruct me from making my request for review
public".

That statement is not a commentary, it is a question and as such
requires an answer.

Therefore, please respond to the question I have asked you or
confirm on this website that you are refusing to answer my
question.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Gradwick

Dear Mr Gradwick,

By way of explanation and answer to your question, the email address I
provided will go directly to the Access Rights Unit.

An internal review must be a fair and impartial review of decisions made
during the original consideration of whether to release information and
as such may be carried out by a person who was not party to the original
request for information.

Kind regards,

Rachael Lewis

Communications Officer
Community Justice Centre

show quoted sections

Dear Rachael Lewis,

I note that you have again failed to answer the question you have
been asked.

Be advised that it is my intention to submit a formal complaint
(outside of the FOI process) against you to the Permanent Secretary
of the Ministry of Justice regarding the manner in which you and
Amrit Lotay have behaved towards me over this matter.

For the purposes of the FOI process, your persistent refusal to
answer a perfectly reasonable question about why you lied to me is
something I will be asking the Information Commissioner to include
in his investigation once this farce reaches that level.

Sincerely,

Stephen Gradwick