Contamination of witness evidence

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

I am writing to request under Freedom of Information 2000
information which is not publicly available by any other means.

Having read information from your impressive website, it becomes
patently clear to me that you have specific rules about witnesses
and how witnesses should be treated.

VULNERABLE WITNESSES

I would like to know how many vulnerable witnesses have had their
evidence rejected because of "contamination of witness evidence"

a] because of "coaching" of the vulnerable witness

b] because of repetitive questioning of the vulnerable witness

c] because of frequent questioning of the vulnerable witness

d] because the vulnerable witness lacked mental capacity

e] because the vulnerable witness was not competent

f] because the vulnerable witness was physically ill

g] because the vulnerable witness was mentally ill

h] because the vulnerable witness was suffering from
post-anaesthesia psychosis [as per the Royal College of
Anaesthetists]

i] because the vulnerable witness was not simply being asked by the
police but also by

i]nurses,
ii] doctors,
iii] healthcare assistants,
iv] therapists,
v] social workers,

so that in the end the vulnerable witness was being persecuted even
when it was supposed to be the vulnerable witness who was supposed
to be the victim, that the mode of questioning being repetitive,
frequent, insistent and ended up being an abuse of the vulnerable
witness?

This last one is of particular interest to me as per the Mental
Capacity Act 2005 and allegations of neglect of a so-called
vulnerable adult under Section 44.

For vulnerable means a plethora of different things.

For example, anybody who is a hospital patient is AUTOMATICALLY
vulnerable - otherwise they would not be in hospital requiring the
help and services of people who can do things that they themselves
cannot provide for themselves eg x-rays, blood tests, inpatient
care, physiotherapy, surgery and the like.

Take, for example, a person who has a broken leg in traction. This
person is automatically a vulnerable person on account of physical
vulnerability because that person cannot get out of bed and is
totally reliant for ALL care from other people. If this person then
becomes unable to stop people coming through their door and demand
and expect answers to questions posed then this becomes harassment
and prevents this vulnerable person from getting the proper
safeguarding that is required in order to get better not just
physically from a broken leg but also the trauma that came with the
broken leg, as any decent pschiatrist will attest, a broken leg is
a life-changing event and one moment you are in charge of your life
and the next you are unable to do anything for yourself at all,
especially if you are in traction.

Add to this the need for compassion, empathy and really good
therapeutic treatment, how can this be done if people keep asking
how you broke your leg, and why did it happen, and why are you in
such a state?

If a person has a broken leg and the nurses cannot wash a person's
hair because the person is bedbound, then it is not the fault of
the patient if he/she looks as though they are unkempt is it? Yet
the MME relies on looks of the person even though the CPS states
that Mental Capacity must not be taken on this, so that if a person
has matted hair or has teeth missing or even is edentulous, this
must NOT be assumed that this person lacks capacity. On the
contrary, this is very dangerous territory indeed. Even talking to
oneself is not necessarily psychotic for if everyone who dabbles in
"virtual reality" games is regarded in the same way, then there
would not be enough mental health beds to go round would there? Of
course not. So what is the difference between talking to oneself
and playing imaginary games on a computer or with electronic
equipment that mimics reality? It could even be argued that the
person talking to him/herself is more sane because he/she is
actually posited in the here and now.

And if the vulnerable patient becomes frustrated and upset by
unwanted and unwarranted attention and suffers from
post-anaesthesia psychosis which is relatively common according to
the Royal College of Anaesthetists where major surgery is involved
with major anaesthesia, then where is the compassion, and moral
integrity of the people who are supposed to be safeguarding this
person from all forms of harm be it physical, emotional,
psychological or any other harm such as poor care and bullying
tactics?

I do wonder just how good the MCA2005 Section 44 is when a person
goes in with a broken leg and ends up being the centre of a major
criminal investigation simply because they do not fit the "norms"
of society.

This surely is a major complaint about how the whole safeguarding
process works in England at present, I aver.

For people can be caught up in this legislation for no better
reason than a few people point a finger and say "j'accuse" and it
is like witch-finding in the middle ages.

If the witch was dunked in a pond and sank the witch was innocent
but if the witch floated to the top she was guilty - but both ways
the person died.

To me the law needs a radical overhaul as there are potentially 6
million carers who might come into this category and suddenly be
accused of a crime of wilful neglect or abuse or ill-treatment even
though there is none, and the person was actually totally rational
and sane and not in any way mentally deranged.

For it is totally possible for two psychiatrists to see the same
person and have totally different views of the same person, even
though they have precisely the same data, one says that there is no
evidence of thought disorder and no mental illness whereas the
other says there is a long history of untreated mental illness and
this person must be sectioned immediately.

That being the case, I think the whole country should be fearful.

I believe that the CPS must be proportionate and ensure that
justice is not only seen to be done but is transparent and fair.

I note that there have been some very high profile cases where
people have initially been charged under Mental Capacity 2005
Section 44 and found guilty only on appeal to be found innocent.

That begs the question of the law itself and how safeguarding
bodies go about their business.

I would like some answers please via WhatDoTheyKnow website
www.whatdotheyknow.com .

Thank you very much for your help in this matter,

Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Cantwell

Dear Ms Maclean, CPS Freedom of Information Unit,

Thank you very much for your kind help and I look forward to
receiving the information I seek via this charity website
http://whatdotheyknow.com

With best wishes,

ROSEMARY CANTWELL

13 FEBRUARY 2012

Dear Mr Starmer, Director of Public Prosecutions, CPS,

I am very concerned to receive this response from the CPS to my FOI
Request regarding Contamination of Witness Evidence.

3 paragraphs exemplify my serious concern for public
accountability:

"These statistics are dependant upon lawyers and administrative
staff identifying appropriate cases
and flagging the case on the Case Management System.

There is, however, no monitoring flag to identify prosecution cases
where a witness or witnesses
have been identified as vulnerable or intimidated.

The CPS central records do not allow us to identify those cases,
flagged as vulnerable or intimidated,
where evidence has been rejected due to ‘contamination of witness
evidence’ for any of the reasons that you have set out in your
question."

You are in charge of the largest Law Firm in England.

As such you surely must have means of "flagging" each and every
case as it progresses - it is scarcely "rocket science" is it?

If a hospital can identify a person as "vulnerable" then surely so
can your prosecutors?

What kind of computing service do you have across the whole CPS?

Do you not aggregate ALL your results into database fields so that
you do not need to flick more than a few switches and half an hour
later you have produced ALL the required information?

Otherwise how can you work?

In 2011 it was stated that a new trial of IT was being introduced
in the CPS. Please may I know what this is as it might appear that
you have antiquated control of your data and I am aware that the
CPS has been the subject of investigation itself as to how it
adduces it evidence from the police and how they determine what
should and should not be produced as evidence in any given
prosecution.

Of course there is another vital angle in all of this.

A vulnerable witness can be the alleged victim. What happens when
this alleged victim is PREVENTED by the Prosecution from having
THEIR VIEWS counted, and that even the FAMILY is prevented from
having THEIR VIEWS counted?

I now wish for my FOI Request to be considered personally by Mr
Keir Starmer, DPP, as I believe it is very important for the STATED
CPS TEST Code for Prosecution ACTUALLY TO BE PUT THROUGH IN DAILY
PRACTICE and that the prosecutors working in the NAME of the CPS
and as agents of the CPS and Director of Public Prosecutions must
be held to account and full transparency of all dealings.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Cantwell
Law Student
Campaigner for Liberty, Truth and Justice

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

Rosemary Cantwell
[email address]

13th February 2012

Ref: 3070

Dear Ms Cantwell,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

I refer to your Freedom of Information request which was received
on the 16th January 2012.

It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act
is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. Information
disclosed under it is thereafter deemed to be in the public domain,
and therefore freely available to the general public upon request.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act creates a statutory
right of access to recorded information held by public authorities
i.e. the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This right is to be
informed whether the information requested is held by the public
authority or not, and if the information exists, for it to be
communicated. A public authority must reply to such a request
promptly and in any event, not later than twenty working days after
receipt.

The individual’s right to information is not unqualified; it is
subject to a number of exemptions that are contained within the
Act. The majority of these exemptions are qualified, that is to say
the decision whether to confirm or deny the information’s existence
or to disclose the requested material, will be subject to a public
interest test.

With regard to your request in relation to how many vulnerable
witnesses have had their evidence rejected because of
"contamination of witness evidence"

a] because of "coaching" of the vulnerable witness
b] because of repetitive questioning of the vulnerable witness
c] because of frequent questioning of the vulnerable witness
d] because the vulnerable witness lacked mental capacity
e] because the vulnerable witness was not competent
f] because the vulnerable witness was physically ill
g] because the vulnerable witness was mentally ill
h] because the vulnerable witness was suffering from
post-anaesthesia psychosis [as per the Royal College of
Anaesthetists]
i] because the vulnerable witness was not simply being asked by the
police but also by

i]nurses,
ii] doctors,
iii] healthcare assistants,
iv] therapists,
v] social workers,

So that in the end the vulnerable witness was being persecuted even
when it was supposed to be the vulnerable witness who was supposed
to be the victim, that the mode of questioning being repetitive,
frequent, insistent and ended up being an abuse of the vulnerable
witness?

The CPS can indentify from its electronic Case Management System
(via a monitoring flag), the numbers of prosecutions where the
victim has been identified as vulnerable or intimidated.  The CPS
defines vulnerable/intimidated victims as follows: -

Vulnerable / Intimidated Victim This code should be applied to
cases which have a victim who has been identified as vulnerable
and/or intimidated in accordance with the definitions set out in
the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act.  The Code of Practice
for Victims of Crime provides victims with statutory rights to a
minimum standard of service.  Victims identified as vulnerable
and/or intimidated (see above) are entitled to receive the enhanced
level of service.  The complainant in respect of a sexual offence
or domestic abuse and the relatives of those who have died as a
result of criminal conduct are also eligible for the enhanced
service under the Code of Practice.  This monitoring code should
therefore be applied to cases involving such offences.

These statistics are dependant upon lawyers and administrative
staff identifying appropriate cases
and flagging the case on the Case Management System.

There is, however, no monitoring flag to identify prosecution cases
where a witness or witnesses
have been identified as vulnerable or intimidated.

The CPS central records do not allow us to identify those cases,
flagged as vulnerable or intimidated,
where evidence has been rejected due to ‘contamination of witness
evidence’ for any of the reasons that you have set out in your
question.

The definition of a vulnerable witness is provided by the following
legislation, Section 16 of the
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999:-
All child witnesses (under 18); and
Any witness whose quality of evidence is likely to be diminished
because they: are suffering from a mental disorder (as defined by
the Mental Health Act 1983); have a significant impairment of
intelligence and social functioning; or have a physical disability
or are suffering from a physical disorder.

In 2010 – 11 the CPS prosecuted over 958,000 defendants and in
order to accurately establish how many of these cases involved
witnesses who were defined as being vulnerable, it would involve
retrieving, reviewing and collating data from every file used in
these prosecutions.

In cases prosecuted in the Crown Court it is highly unlikely that
the majority of the questions that you ask could be answered by
reviewing the actual case files. Jurors are not obliged to give the
reasons for a verdict. The CPS would not be able to know if the
evidence of a particular witness(es) was rejected or the reason for
this. All we would be able to say is that the jury were unable to
be sure of the defendant’s guilt. Even if there might be some cases
where a reasonable inference could be drawn that the evidence of a
vulnerable victim was rejected, it would be necessary to review
individual case records/files to ascertain this information (if in
fact it has been recorded). 

Although Magistrates do provide reasons for their decisions they do
not provide the level of detail that
you have requested, so it is also highly unlikely that we would be
able to answer the questions you raise in relation to cases
proceeding in the magistrates’ courts, even if we were to
individually review each case file.

Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act provides that a
public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying
with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The
appropriate cost/time limit is specified in the Freedom of
Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees)
Regulations 2004 and for central government is set at £600.

This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5
working days in determining whether the Department holds the
information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the
information. We believe that the cost of ascertaining those cases
where evidence was given by a vulnerable witness would exceed the
appropriate limit. As outlined above, even if this exercise was
carried out it is highly unlikely that this would enable the
department to answer the questions that you have raised as that
information would not be recorded. Consequently, the department is
not obliged to comply with your request in accordance with section
12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

If you are unhappy with the decisions made in relation to your
request you may ask for an internal
review within two calendar months of the date of this letter. You
should contact the Information
Management Unit (Freedom of Information Appeals), Rose Court, 2
Southwark Bridge, London, SE1
9HS.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you
have the right to complain directly to the Information
Commissioner, who can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Ms K MacLean
Information Management Unit

Dear Mr Starmer DPP, Crown Prosecution Service,

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution
Service's handling of my FOI request 'Contamination of witness
evidence'.

I am a campaigner for legal reform and would appreciate a review of
my request for information.

There is a difference legally between a request for advice - which
is not what I seek - and the advice owned and held by the Crown
Prosecution such as that displayed for public view on your website.

This is an important fact to bear in mind when reviewing my Request
for information. Clearly I am not asking you to make policy on the
hoof. But what I am requesting is to have the answers to the
questions I have posed.

I would be most grateful to have the CPS's answers.

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

Yours sincerely,

ROSEMARY CANTWELL

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

20 February 2012

Dear Mr Cameron Prime Minister, Mr Starmer QC, DPP,Crown
Prosecution Service, and Mr Turner, MP for the Isle of Wight, and
Mrs May, Home Secretary,

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution
Service's handling of my FOI request 'Contamination of witness
evidence'

My correspondence refers to my Freedom of Information request at
http://whatdotheyknow.com charity website.

For ease of reference my FOI was made on 16 January 2012, your
reference 3070.

I am particularly concerned about the legislation regarding mental
health. When I received response from the GMC to my FOI Request to
them, I found that my concerns had ALREADY been expressed in
statutory consultations with Parliament regarding mental health
legislation.

To me this shows that I am not a lone voice calling for reform but
that doctors have themselves expressed grave concerns in the past.

I look forward to having your personal response because whilst you
may say that this is not an FOI Request I believe that it is of
such seriousness that the Home Office should investigate this in
minute detail as there are potentially some 6 million supporters
and / or carers of people who might be deemed to lack mental
capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 whether it be temporary
following a major operation and suffering post-operative cognitive
dysfunction or to people who might suddenly act oddly and do an
unwise act and then be deemed FORENSICALLY to have been mentally
incapacitated at that moment in time might then doom their carer or
relative or friend if that person does not notify the authorities
such as the police, ambulance, GP or social services.

We have crossed the Rubicon.

Please investigate thoroughly and let us have a national moratorium
on mental health.

Thank you very much for your help,

Rosemary Cantwell

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

Dear Mr Willman, Freedom of Information Unit,

Thank you very much.

Yours sincerely,

ROSEMARY CANTWELL

16 March 2012

Dear Mr Grieve, MP, QC, Attorney General, Mr Starmer, QC, Director
of Public Prosecutions, Mr Clarke, Lord Chancellor, Secretary of
State for Justice, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Information
Commissioner,

I thank the CPS, Ms MacLean and Ms Altham, who expressed her
condolences on my mother's death and that I and my family are still
seeking justice even now, 5 years and 8 months after she died in
Princess Royal University Hospital on 3 July 2006.

The Coroner was informed by a member of staff of Bromley Hospitals
NHS Trust as this is recorded on the Death Certificate. There was
an I Patel and an S Hamid.

I wish to know precisely how and why my mother's death has been
UNINVESTIGATED for so long, without CPS being involved by the
Police. For there most certainly WAS a police CAB NUMBER given to
me on 12 December 2012.

I wish to know, as by rights, as my mother's Executrix, why the
Police did not consult the Crown Prosecution Service for the CPS
has denied all knowledge of a possible prosecution and that they
only deal with alleged crimes reported to them by the Police.

And that is my point made precisely.

Why was my mother, a vulnerable person, made vulnerable by being
diagnosed as gravely ill, NOT accorded the Equal Rights of a person
who was younger and fitter and not seen as an encumbrance on the
state purse, who might be able to work for a living,
notwithstanding that my mother was a public servant for most of her
adult life?

The abuse of the elderly is a wickedness beyond comprehension, in
my view - and that of my entire family - just as much as we view
the abuse of ANY person and wilful mistreatment to be terrible and
rightly needs to be found out and investigated thoroughly.

And that is why I believe that the MPS and CPS are not fit for
purpose regarding me and my family for we have involved you many
times and pleaded with you to investigate this.

It has been put to me during my research, that it is not the place
for the CPS to investigate a crime but for police to do so. I wish
to have your own consideration of this - please advise me what the
CPS's role actually is defined as, and that of the police.

For I maintain that this is PRECISELY what the CPS does as
according to your OWN WEBSITE, there are accounts of CPS being
congratulated for all their INVESTIGATIVE work, and that there is
one relating how a CPS employee worked in a Police facility using
Police computer with a folder given to the CPS personnel, and that
a further 10 files were added to the investigation.

So it can scarcely be credible that it is ONLY the police who
investigate, as this is clearly NOT the case, as your own website
clearly states the exact OPPOSITE.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...
"working alongside"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...
"inter agency working"

"first case in our office that involved working with the police"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...

"by working closely with the police"

"She had to deal with hearsay applications, hostile witness
statements to be admitted and witness anonymity to be granted,"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...

"worked closely with 10 police forces to draw together the complex
evidence from each of the areas"

"handled it extremely sensitively, working with the police out-of
hours and liaising with the hospital"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...

"worked together with the police to prepare the case file
...successful outcome of the case was due to the co-operation
between the police and CPS before charge.."

"close working alongside Hackney Police's proactive drugs and
firearms squad"

The MAPPA - MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS clearly are
at work with the CPS not just prosecuting and charging people but
also investigating and policing if what I have been reading in the
Success stories of the CPS's webpages detailing great triumphs.

But where is the Separation of Powers that is supposed to be so
crucial to our Democracy and British Constitution - which, although
an unwritten constitution - is based on principles of separation of
powers.

Can the CPS really be neutral in any event?
Can the Police really be neutral in any event?
For if the MAPPA extends across all providers such as Local
Authorities, Hospital Trusts, GPs, Social Workers and other public
servants, then is it not the case that there might be a CONFLICT OF
INTEREST arising therefrom?

I am all for transparency but when I have been learning about the
Leveson Enquiry and read Mr Starmer's Witness Statement as DPP,CPS,
I begin to wonder what England has become.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-cont...

I wish there to be total transparency in ALL my family's issues
with the Metropolitan Police, Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, South
London Healthcare NHS Trust, London Borough of Bromley, HMRC and
Summercroft Surgery inter alia, and the Care Quality Commission and
PHSO.

I shall leave no stone unturned in getting the TRUTH.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Cantwell

Campaigner for liberty, truth and justice

[email address]

13th February 2012

Ref: 3070

Dear Ms Cantwell,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

I refer to your Freedom of Information request which was received
on the 16th January 2012.

It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act
is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. Information
disclosed under it is thereafter deemed to be in the public domain,
and therefore freely available to the general public upon request.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act creates a statutory
right of access to recorded information held by public authorities
i.e. the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This right is to be
informed whether the information requested is held by the public
authority or not, and if the information exists, for it to be
communicated. A public authority must reply to such a request
promptly and in any event, not later than twenty working days after
receipt.

The individual’s right to information is not unqualified; it is
subject to a number of exemptions that are contained within the
Act. The majority of these exemptions are qualified, that is to say
the decision whether to confirm or deny the information’s existence
or to disclose the requested material, will be subject to a public
interest test.

With regard to your request in relation to how many vulnerable
witnesses have had their evidence rejected because of
"contamination of witness evidence"

a] because of "coaching" of the vulnerable witness

b] because of repetitive questioning of the
vulnerable witness

c] because of frequent questioning of the
vulnerable witness

d] because the vulnerable witness lacked mental
capacity

e] because the vulnerable witness was not
competent

f] because the vulnerable witness was physically
ill

g] because the vulnerable witness was mentally ill

h] because the vulnerable witness was suffering
from post-anaesthesia psychosis [as per the
Royal College of Anaesthetists]

i] because the vulnerable witness was not simply
being asked by the police but also by

i]nurses,
ii] doctors,
iii] healthcare assistants,
iv] therapists,
v] social workers,

So that in the end the vulnerable witness was being persecuted even
when it was supposed to be the vulnerable witness who was supposed
to be the victim, that the mode of questioning being repetitive,
frequent, insistent and ended up being an abuse of the vulnerable
witness?

The CPS can indentify from its electronic Case Management System
(via a monitoring flag), the
numbers of prosecutions where the victim has been identified as
vulnerable or intimidated. The CPS
defines vulnerable/intimidated victims as follows: -

Vulnerable / Intimidated Victim This code should be applied to
cases which have a victim who has been identified as vulnerable
and/or intimidated in accordance with the definitions set out in
the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act. The Code of Practice
for Victims of Crime provides victims with statutory rights to a
minimum standard of service. Victims identified as vulnerable
and/or intimidated (see above) are entitled to receive the enhanced
level of service. The complainant in respect of a sexual offence or
domestic abuse and the relatives of those who have died as a result
of criminal conduct are also eligible for the enhanced service
under the Code of Practice. This monitoring code should therefore
be applied to cases involving such offences.

These statistics are dependant upon lawyers and administrative
staff identifying appropriate cases
and flagging the case on the Case Management System.

There is, however, no monitoring flag to identify prosecution cases
where a witness or witnesses
have been identified as vulnerable or intimidated.

The CPS central records do not allow us to identify those cases,
flagged as vulnerable or intimidated,
where evidence has been rejected due to ‘contamination of witness
evidence’ for any of the reasons that you have set out in your
question.

The definition of a vulnerable witness is provided by the following
legislation, Section 16 of the
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999:-

• All child witnesses (under 18); and

• Any witness whose quality of evidence is likely to be diminished
because they:

o are suffering from a mental disorder (as defined by the Mental
Health Act 1983);

o have a significant impairment of intelligence and social
functioning; or

o have a physical disability or are suffering from a physical
disorder.

In 2010 – 11 the CPS prosecuted over 958,000 defendants and in
order to accurately establish how many of these cases involved
witnesses who were defined as being vulnerable, it would involve
retrieving, reviewing and collating data from every file used in
these prosecutions.

In cases prosecuted in the Crown Court it is highly unlikely that
the majority of the questions that you ask could be answered by
reviewing the actual case files. Jurors are not obliged to give the
reasons for a verdict. The CPS would not be able to know if the
evidence of a particular witness(es) was rejected or the reason for
this. All we would be able to say is that the jury were unable to
be sure of the defendant’s guilt. Even if there might be some cases
where a reasonable inference could be drawn that the evidence of a
vulnerable victim was rejected, it would be necessary to review
individual case records/files to ascertain this information (if in
fact it has been recorded).

Although Magistrates do provide reasons for their decisions they do
not provide the level of detail that
you have requested, so it is also highly unlikely that we would be
able to answer the questions you
raise in relation to cases proceeding in the magistrates’ courts,
even if we were to individually review each case file.

Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act provides that a
public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for
information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying
with the request would exceed the appropriate limit. The
appropriate cost/time limit is specified in the Freedom of
Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees)
Regulations 2004 and for central government is set at £600.

This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5
working days in determining whether the Department holds the
information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the
information. We believe that the cost of ascertaining those cases
where evidence was given by a vulnerable witness would exceed the
appropriate limit. As outlined above, even if this exercise was
carried out it is highly unlikely that this would enable the
department to answer the questions that you have raised as that
information would not be recorded. Consequently, the department is
not obliged to comply with your request in accordance with section
12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

If you are unhappy with the decisions made in relation to your
request you may ask for an internal
review within two calendar months of the date of this letter. You
should contact the Information
Management Unit (Freedom of Information Appeals), Rose Court, 2
Southwark Bridge, London, SE1
9HS.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you
have the right to complain directly to the Information
Commissioner, who can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s
Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Ms K MacLean
Information Management Unit

Rosemary Cantwell
Request – [email address]

14 March 2012

Ref: IR/7/12

Dear Ms Cantwell,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) 2000 REQUEST

I refer to your request for an internal review dated 20 February,
2012 to the response you received from the Information Management
Unit (Ms Maclean) to your FOIA request reference number 3070. This
has been referred to me to conduct the internal review.

In your email of 20 February you express your concern about the
legislation regarding mental health rather than the actual response
given to your request for information about vulnerable witnesses.
You may find that the Ministry of Justice would be the most
appropriate contact for you to channel your concerns regarding the
development or change in legislation. Please find the following
link to assist you. http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations

Notwithstanding the above I have reviewed the response to your
request for information and consider that Ms Maclean has explained
that the CPS does not identify prosecution cases where a witness or
witnesses have been identified as vulnerable or intimidated.
It may assist to explain that the CPS computer system point of
entry, as it were, is in recording cases where the police, having
investigated a complaint, refer the matter to the CPS, either for
advice, a charging decision, or for prosecution in those cases
where the police have retained the responsibility to charge.

It may also assist to explain that whilst the CPS system can be
searched for data recorded against a defendant's name and also for
different offence types, the database cannot be interrogated for
the details you have requested. In order to establish the
information you require the CPS would have to physically trawl
through every case file it has prosecuted. As an example, in
2010-2011 the CPS prosecuted over 116,898 cases in the Crown Court.
Hence where such information may exist within our case files, in
view of the time it would take to deal, as far as we are able, with
your request, you have been advised that the cost exemption has
been applied.

Further, for the sake of completeness, limiting your request to the
3.5 days would, in my view, still not address the issue that we are
unable, even then, to comply with the terms of your request.

Having considered the response from the Information Management Unit
I am satisfied that this request has also been fully addressed.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you
have the right to complain directly to the Information
Commissioner, who can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

J Altham
Information Management Unit

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution
Service's handling of my FOI request 'Contamination of witness
evidence'.

I requested this internal review on 17 March 2012 but simply had an
out of office response by J Altham.

Please may I request that the CPS can confirm that you will be
responding in the 20 working days to my request for internal
review, which by my calculations is 17 April 2012 allowing for
public and bank holidays.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Cantwell

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

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

10 April 2012

Dear Mr Grieve, MP, QC, Attorney General, Mr Starmer, QC, Director
of Public Prosecutions, Mr Garnier Solicitor General, Mr Cameron
Prime Minister and the Cabinet and Cabinet Office, Mr Hogan-Howe
Commissioner Metropolitan Police, Care Quality Commission, HMCTS,
South London Coroner, PHSO, LGO, Mr Clarke, Lord Chancellor,
Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight,
Information Commissioner, Mr Hennessy Select Committee Human
Rights, Lady Northover House of Lords Human Rights, Mr Tannock MEP,
Councillor Ellis London Borough of Bromley, South London Healthcare
NHS Trust, Bromley PCT, Summercroft Surgery, Oxleas, GMC, IPCC,

I wish to register a formal complaint that the Crown Prosecution
Service has specifically refused to answer my questions, claiming
instead that I had been told that my only recourse now was to the
Information Commissioner.

In my emailing via whatdotheyknow on 17 March 2012, I wrote
requesting answers to my questions but these have been refused.
Why?

Even if you cannot answer me as by Freedom of Information, you MUST
answer me under Data Protection Act 1998 and you have my private
email address for this or equally you MUST answer my legitimate
enquiries by means of STANDARD response.

The non-transparency of what has been going on behind closed doors
regarding my dead mother is beyond belief.

I wish to have a Coroner's Inquest into my late mother's health and
social care and it is not right for the State to prevent justice
from being seen to be done.

I would appreciate it if you could respond to me at my home
address/email with the FULL details of what is known about my
mother by ALL MULTI-AGENCY ARRANGEMENTS and ALL GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS and ALL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, including Oxleas who
stated that my mother had never been their patient yet the GMC has
a document which is a fax from Princess Royal University Hospital,
Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust to Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust of 29
June 2006 seeking a psychogeriatrician's opinion.

The GMC has refused to give me all my mother's records as held by
them including a major report which has been SPECIFICALLY withheld
from me. Why?

And why have the CPS and Metropolitan Police Service refused to
investigate the issue of the prescription of Haloperidol by
injection PRN to my late mother? She was never diagnosed as having
a mental health condition or mental health issues by her GP or by
the doctors treating her BEFORE we complained to the Metropolitan
Police on 28 June 2006. Indeed, to the contrary, she had been
specifically shown to have capacity even when she was declared to
be on her deathbed in April 2006 and was allowed to self-discharge
from Princess Royal University Hospital at that time.

Please explain.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,

Rosemary Cantwell

Campaigner for legal reform, liberty, truth and justice

From: ROSEMARY CANTWELL

17 March 2012
16 March 2012

Dear Mr Grieve, MP, QC, Attorney General, Mr Starmer, QC, Director
of Public Prosecutions, Mr Clarke, Lord Chancellor, Secretary of
State for Justice, Mr Turner MP for the Isle of Wight, Information
Commissioner,

I thank the CPS, Ms MacLean and Ms Altham, who expressed her
condolences on my mother's death and that I and my family are still
seeking justice even now, 5 years and 8 months after she died in
Princess Royal University Hospital on 3 July 2006.

The Coroner was informed by a member of staff of Bromley Hospitals
NHS Trust as this is recorded on the Death Certificate. There was
an I Patel and an S Hamid.

I wish to know precisely how and why my mother's death has been
UNINVESTIGATED for so long, without CPS being involved by the
Police. For there most certainly WAS a police CAB NUMBER given to
me on 12 December 2012.

I wish to know, as by rights, as my mother's Executrix, why the
Police did not consult the Crown Prosecution Service for the CPS
has denied all knowledge of a possible prosecution and that they
only deal with alleged crimes reported to them by the Police.

And that is my point made precisely.

Why was my mother, a vulnerable person, made vulnerable by being
diagnosed as gravely ill, NOT accorded the Equal Rights of a person
who was younger and fitter and not seen as an encumbrance on the
state purse, who might be able to work for a living,
notwithstanding that my mother was a public servant for most of her
adult life?

The abuse of the elderly is a wickedness beyond comprehension, in
my view - and that of my entire family - just as much as we view
the abuse of ANY person and wilful mistreatment to be terrible and
rightly needs to be found out and investigated thoroughly.

And that is why I believe that the MPS and CPS are not fit for
purpose regarding me and my family for we have involved you many
times and pleaded with you to investigate this.

It has been put to me during my research, that it is not the place
for the CPS to investigate a crime but for police to do so. I wish
to have your own consideration of this - please advise me what the
CPS's role actually is defined as, and that of the police.

For I maintain that this is PRECISELY what the CPS does as
according to your OWN WEBSITE, there are accounts of CPS being
congratulated for all their INVESTIGATIVE work, and that there is
one relating how a CPS employee worked in a Police facility using
Police computer with a folder given to the CPS personnel, and that
a further 10 files were added to the investigation.

So it can scarcely be credible that it is ONLY the police who
investigate, as this is clearly NOT the case, as your own website
clearly states the exact OPPOSITE.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...
"working alongside"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...
"inter agency working"

"first case in our office that involved working with the police"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...

"by working closely with the police"

"She had to deal with hearsay applications, hostile witness
statements to be admitted and witness anonymity to be granted,"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...

"worked closely with 10 police forces to draw together the complex
evidence from each of the areas"

"handled it extremely sensitively, working with the police out-of
hours and liaising with the hospital"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/successes_of_...

"worked together with the police to prepare the case file
...successful outcome of the case was due to the co-operation
between the police and CPS before charge.."

"close working alongside Hackney Police's proactive drugs and
firearms squad"

The MAPPA - MULTI-AGENCY PUBLIC PROTECTION ARRANGEMENTS clearly are
at work with the CPS not just prosecuting and charging people but
also investigating and policing if what I have been reading in the
Success stories of the CPS's webpages detailing great triumphs.

But where is the Separation of Powers that is supposed to be so
crucial to our Democracy and British Constitution - which, although
an unwritten constitution - is based on principles of separation of
powers.

Can the CPS really be neutral in any event?
Can the Police really be neutral in any event?
For if the MAPPA extends across all providers such as Local
Authorities, Hospital Trusts, GPs, Social Workers and other public
servants, then is it not the case that there might be a CONFLICT OF
INTEREST arising therefrom?

I am all for transparency but when I have been learning about the
Leveson Enquiry and read Mr Starmer's Witness Statement as DPP,CPS,
I begin to wonder what England has become.

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-cont...

I wish there to be total transparency in ALL my family's issues
with the Metropolitan Police, Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, South
London Healthcare NHS Trust, London Borough of Bromley, HMRC and
Summercroft Surgery inter alia, and the Care Quality Commission and
PHSO.

I shall leave no stone unturned in getting the TRUTH.

Thank you very much,

Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Cantwell

Campaigner for liberty, truth and justice