Court Appearance Details - Handlers of Cambridge's Stolen Bikes

The request was refused by HM Courts and Tribunals Service.

Cambridgeshire Police told a meeting of Cambridge's Community Safety Partnership this morning that they have caught and bailed five “medium scale handlers” who have each been selling 20-30 stolen bikes per week online.

Could you please let me know when and where these individuals will appear in court.

Regards,

--

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

Background information on this request can be found at:

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/csp-12-2010.html

Customer Services \(CSHQ\),

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. This information is not available. I suggest
you ask the police.

Regards
HMCS

show quoted sections

Dear Her Majesty's Courts Service,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Her Majesty's Courts Service's handling of my FOI request 'Court Appearance Details - Handlers of Cambridge's Stolen Bikes'.

You have stated the information I sought is "not available"; could you please clarify if this means the information is not held by HMCS or if you are withholding it.

If the information is not held, can you explain why not and detail the search strategy you used to determine the information was not held.

If the information I requested is held and HMCS is refusing to release it can you please send me a formal decision notice citing the exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act which you are relying on.

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 faithfully,

--

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

Evans, Michael, HM Courts and Tribunals Service

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Zone 6 B
Mr Richard Taylor Post point 6.25
102 Petty France
Cambridge London
SW1H 9AJ

T 020 3334 3237
E F 020 3334 2245
[1][FOI #54822 email] E
[HMCS request email]

www.justice.gov.uk

Date 29-DEC-10 Our Ref:IR/68512/10

Dear Mr Taylor,

Thank you for your correspondence of December 22, 2010, in which you asked
for an Internal Review into handling of your request for information with
reference number FOI/54822/10.

Your request for an Internal Review is being handled in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will be passed to the Unit that will
carry out this process.

You will be contacted separately by the person conducting the review but in
the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.
Please quote Ref: IR/68512/10 in all future correspondence.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Evans
Data Access and Compliance Unit

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 Ministry of Justice. 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

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #54822 email]

Van Tankeren, Dona,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Taylor

Please see the attached correspondence.

Yours sincerely

Dona van Tankeren

Dona van Tankeren

Her Majesty's Court Service | Cambridgeshire, Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk
Area

Address: The Magistrates' Court, Elm Street, Ipswich, IP1 2AP. DX 3232
Ipswich | Tel: (direct dial) 01473 298994 | Fax: 01473 231249 | E-mail:
[1][email address]

"I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to
make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of
Justice in any way via electronic means."

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 Ministry of Justice. 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

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

Basically their response is they can't find the information I've requested; but they've not described to me why they can't eg. what searches they have conducted and how long they estimate finding the information would take.

(They are also still saying they're refusing to treat my request as an FOI request)

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

I am appealing this decision to the Information Commissioner.

My complaint is:

"HM Court Service have refused to deal with my request for information as a FOI request. They have stated they are unable to trace information on when/where a court appearance is to take place "without the name of the defendant and the likely venue of the hearing". My view is they ought to have at least considered how they might conduct a search based on alternative information provided to attempt to identify the case(s) of interest.
In my view this is a matter of substantial public interest; and raises questions of if the court system is truly open and public or not. The doors of the courts may be open, but in practice that is of limited use if HM Courts Service refuse to release information on when/where cases of interest to members of the public are scheduled. "

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The ICO have written to me to say:

"Your case has been allocated to one of our case resolution teams who will contact you as soon as possible to explain how your complaint will be progressed."

The case has been allocated Case Reference Number FS50373852

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The Information Commissioner's Office has written to me with an update:

"You contacted the Commissioner on 9 February 2011 to complain about the way in which HMCS handled your request for information. You specifically drew the Commissioner’s attention to the following points:

• an adequate search for the information had not been carried out, and;
• HMCS had not dealt with your request under the Act.

The Investigation

My initial steps in the investigation have been, therefore, to try to ascertain whether the requested information would be held by HMCS. I have made enquiries regarding the different types of bail, researched the court hearing system and spoken to a magistrate in order to understand how HMCS would be notified about upcoming court hearings and whether information could easily be accessed.

My preliminary view is that if the individuals in question had been released on police bail, HMCS would not be aware of any dates or venues set for court appearances and moreover the court hearings may not have been organised at the time of your request.

If court appearances had been organised, I agree that HMCS would need the information described in the letter to you of 14 January 2011 namely the names of defendants and the likely venue of any court hearing in order to provide you with the relevant date.

The likely conclusion would therefore be that either information was not held by HMCS or that more clarification was needed in order to comply with the request.

Procedural mishandling

Connected to the conclusions above, I am also of the view that HMCS mishandled your request by not clearly advising you of any further information that was needed to comply with your request. HMCS also failed to advise you of how information was recorded and whether information pertaining to your request could be accessed.

Section 1(3) of the Act states that where a public authority requires further information in order to identify and locate the information requested, and has informed the applicant of that requirement, the authority is not obliged to comply with the request unless it is supplied with that further information.

In the first response provided to you on 15 December 2010 HMCS should therefore have explained that further information was needed in order to comply with the request and asked you to supply it.

Section 16 of the Act also places a duty on a public authority to provide advice and assistance to an applicant making a request for information. Under section 16 HMCS should have explained the circumstances surrounding different types of bail to you and offered advice regarding how to refine your request in order for it to identify or locate the information you were interested in.

Searches for requested information

I note your point made in your complaint to the Commissioner that HMCS did not carry out an adequate search for the requested information. While I agree that it did not respond in accordance with the provisions of the Act, I have to make you aware that the Commissioner would not expect HMCS to go to great lengths to try to identify the cases of interest.

It appears that, without further clarification from you, HMCS would need to contact Cambridgeshire Police in an attempt to ascertain further details regarding the individuals released on bail or conduct other research in order to identify whether the requested information was held and locate it. This would be going above and beyond the obligations of the Act and the Commissioner would not expect HMCS to contact further parties or make detailed enquiries about the requested information. A request made under the Act can only be for recorded information and does not oblige a public authority to create information in order to answer it.

However the lack of adequate advice and assistance does tie in to the points made above regarding the searches carried out. Although HMCS is not obliged to create information or make thorough enquires to third parties, the fact remains that it should have assisted you to a greater extent regarding refining your request.

Next Steps

I will of course be writing to HMCS to make it aware of my investigation and to highlight the procedural mishandling of your request.

I can also ask HMCS to explain in greater detail how information relating to court appearances is held and recommend that it provides you with any advice and assistance that may help you with your request for information.

As detailed at the start of this letter, the Commissioner can also ultimately issue a Decision Notice in order to resolve your complaint.

With regard to the clarification needed, can I ask whether you have contacted Cambridgeshire Police at all or made any further enquiries which may enable you to refine your request since your complaint to the ICO was submitted?

Please make me aware of any further information you may be able to provide within the next 10 working days. This will help avoid any unnecessary delay in investigating your complaint.

As I have indicated, the resolution of your case may take some time but I will update you on the progress of the investigation as appropriate. However, if you have any queries at any time you are welcome to write to me at the above address ..."

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

I have responded to the ICO to say:

"Dear Susan Chester,

Many thanks for your encouraging letter updating me on your investigation.

You asked:

With regard to the clarification needed, can I ask whether you have contacted Cambridgeshire Police at all or made any further enquiries which may enable you to refine your request since your complaint to the ICO was submitted?

I have not contacted Cambridgeshire Police in relation to this request for information.

I have not made any further enquiries, but have read what a number of what I believe may be related articles in one of my local newspapers:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Thr...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Pol...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Tra...

I do not know if these articles are directly related, but it appears likely to me that they may well be.

Regards,
"

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The ICO have written to me to say:

"Dear Mr Taylor

Further to our correspondence in May I am now in a position to provide you with an update on the case referenced above.

I have been in contact with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) regarding how your request was handled and have received further explanation from the MOJ as to why it considers that no information is held pertaining to your request.

I have written back to the MOJ today seeking further clarification on its computer systems and how relevant information to your request may be recorded and searched for. In line with the ICO policy I have asked for a response to my enquiries within 20 working days.

I will, of course, write to you again once I receive the response from the MOJ.
"

Richard Taylor left an annotation ()

The ICO issued a decision notice in respect of my appeal in relation to this request on the 28th of September 2011. It is reference FS50373852 and is available at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...

They have decided the courts probably didn't hold the information if the individuals were on police bail.

The suggestion is made that if I had known the names and dates of birth of the defendants I may have been told their court dates; however based on the information I provided the courts were unable to search their records.

I would like to be able to find out when people are in court based on a description of their offence.

--

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk