Consultation

Dear Mr Canning,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010030001835

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 8th March
2010 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on the
same date. I note you seek access to the following information:

Please supply the consultation documents in relation to stakeholders and
JNCC and the all of the eventual replies from the aforsaid that involved
the EEC Regulation 3626 [International trade in Endangered Species COTES]
in so far it it is connected with birds of prey especially peregrine
falcons and the UK.

DECISION

The MPS served you with a Vexatious Notice under Section 14(1) of the Act
on 16th November 2009.

Your request is still centred around Birds of Prey. I consider that the
aforementioned notice still stands.

Therefore under Section 17(6)(a)(b)(c) of the Act we are not legally
obliged to respond to this request.

Section 17(6)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply where-
(a) the public authority is relying on a claim that section 14 applies,
(b) the authority has given the applicant a notice, in relation to a
previous request for information, stating that it is relying on such a
claim, and
(c) it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to expect the
authority to serve a further notice under subsection (5) in relation to
the current request.

Section 14(1) of the Act provides:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the request is vexatious.

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 email
me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

James Young
SCD 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 Canning,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2010030004472

I am now able to provide a response to request for a review dated 18th
March 2010 concerning:

* Complaint regarding: 2010030001835

ORIGINAL REQUEST

1] Please supply all the information that you hold on the criteria for
releasing pictures of Semi naked children to the RSPB and the safeguard to
protect children from such events that have recently occurred.

2] Also, please supply all the information that you hold on the criteria
for allowing the RSPB access to pictures of children and where children
actual live while on police raids and the safeguards to protect our
children. For example do the RSPB have CRB checks like everyone else who
could come in contact with children and do the police check the CRB checks
on each person on the raid?

3] Given the two questions above please supply all the information that
you hold on giving the RSPB unsupervised access to children's pictures and
where the children actually live.

Please address your legal duty to supply the information requested from a
public body and the overriding duty of care to protect children from the
potential of any threat to their safety.

DECISION

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

* Uphold the original decision

Under Section 17(6) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) you
request for information relating to the subject matter of RSBP/Birds of
Prey is refused because it engages the exemption Section 14(1) Vexatious
or Repeated Requests.
REASON FOR DECISION

On 30th May 2007 the MPS wrote to you (see history attached) relating to
the subject matter of RSBP/Birds of Prey stating that: "In your case we
are aware of your ongoing dispute with Northumbria Police and the fact
that you have made numerous complaints regarding their dealings with you
some years ago. Also, the fact that you have written to, and received a
great deal of information from other bodies and officials, including the
Prime Minister, for many years is evidence of the obsessive nature of your
requests for information on this subject. "

The MPS has provided you with explanations as to why they are engaging
S14(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on more than one occasion to
any requests that they receive regarding anything to do with RSPB or Birds
of Prey.

This review although not necessary after previous refusals under S14(1, is
being sent in order to set out our reasons for this decision and to make
it clear what the MPS continued standing on these requests is. I have also
provided a word document showing a history of your requests sent to the
MPS and their responses together with reviews that were done at your
request.

14 (1) Vexatious or repeated requests
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

The following guidance has been issued by the Information Commissioner on
Section 14 of the act:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
In this guidance the ICO state:

"Under Section 14(1) , public authorities do not have to comply with
vexatious requests. There is no public interest test. Deciding whether a
request is vexatious is a balancing exercise, taking into account the
content and history of the request. The key question is whether the
request is likely to cause unjust distress, disruption or irritation. In
particular you should consider the following questions:

* Could the request be fairly seen as obsessive?
* Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
* Would complying with the request impose a significant burden in terms
of expense and distraction?
* Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance ?
* Does the request lack any serious value or purpose?

We recognise that having to deal with clearly unreasonable requests can
strain your organisation's resources, damage the credibility of the FOIA
and get in the way of answering other requests. "

I am of the opinion that your requests can be fairly seen as obsessive and
have (and would continued to do so if allowed) to impose a significant
burden on our resources. Having been informed of the MPS's position with
regard to the matter in question you continue to make requests and send
emails about the subject of RSPB and Birds of Prey to the Police Service
to the extent that they now lack serious value or purpose and appear to be
only being asked to cause further disruption or annoyance. You have over
the last few years contacted numerous forces in an endeavour to obtain
information relating to the RSPB and Birds of Prey.

The above factors have been carefully considered together with the
attached history of the requests received from you by this organisation
when reaching our decision to continue upholding S14(1).

Under Section 14(1) the MPS are under no legal obligation since the first
refusal was given on 30th May 2007 to give any response to further
requests for information that ask for the same subject matter that has
been considered Vexatious. Furthermore, it is the MPS intention that they
will not respond to any further requests that are received from this point
on.

I recommend that you should now contact the Information Commissioner (ICO)
if you wish to pursue this complaint further.

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 3657 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Julia Wharton
Public Access Office

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Canning

Attached is the History document that should have been disclosed with the
response I just sent. For some reason there was an error in sending this
with the original.

Regards

Julia Wharton
Public Access Office

show quoted sections