Crime investigation following allegations relating to and including Privy Council Appeal No 70 of 19977

Dear Sir or Madam,
I would be obliged for a record of the investigating Officers
notes/log etc following telephone conversations and emails (from
Gibraltar) regarding PC Appeal No 70 of 1997 and allegations of
perverting the course of justice and perjury. Also of document/s
relating to why the investigation was stopped

Yours faithfully,
D A Schiller

Dear Mr Simmons,

Thank you for your response:-
1. There was only a preliminary investigation, carried out by a DS
(now retired) whose faxes carried the heading ‘Specialist
Operations, Organised Crime Group, New Scotland Yard’. The first
contact I had from the Met was Nov 1998 by fax which carries the
number 004A 171 230 3282 The ‘investigation’ was later stopped and
filed as ‘No Crime’by John Stevens The investigating Officer was
not authorised to travel to Gibraltar to investigate (although the
CPS had confirmed jurisdiction did lie with the Met) and an offer
by the writer to travel to London to make a Statement and provide
evidence was declined.
2. The date was late 1998 to early 1999
3. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, initially John
Stevens, is accused of perverting/conspiring to pervert Justice,
resulting from his act in stopping the criminal investigation and
that is the limit of any accusation against the Met. Perjury and
other charges are alleged against Foreign Office/ government
personnel in London and Gibraltar and those Privy Councillors who
‘heard’ PC Appeal No 70 of 1997

Sincerely, David Schiller

Kevin Simmons
Policy and Support OfficerSW6 1SF

Dear Mr Simmons

Thank you for your contact from which I note you are unable to
identify any specific records or documents and in the circumstances
it may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of what may be an
unusual case:-

In 1998 a Privy Council 'judicial committee', chaired by Lord
Irvine (LC), heard an appeal against a judgement of the Court of
Appeal for Gibraltar and in recommending it be dismissed relied on
fresh affidavit evidence included as a part of the Respondents case
to the effect that several Governors of Gibraltar had lied

The 'evidence', which on it's own face is false, ought not have
been allowed and either the five 'Law Lords' are incompetent or
they conspired to defeat justice or both

The allegation is they Conspired to Defeat Justice

Private criminal prosecutions in Gibraltar against the alleged
Deponents of the Affidavits were 'taken over and discontinued' by
the A-G resulting in an application for a Voluntary Bill of
Indictment to issue against him which remains un-processed by the
Supreme court The A-G is a joint Respondent to the action and
suborned the evidence

Because the conspiracy had taken place in London the matter was
reported to the Met to investigate. Initial contact was by
telephone and fax outlining the case with fuller details to be
given after preliminary enquiries and jurisdiction had been
confirmed

The CPS in London were consulted but because the A-G was an
ex-employee they referred it to another office who confirmed
jurisdiction would lie with the Met

The DS (investigating officer) asked for and was given details of
the whereabouts of an ex- Governors Liaison Officers who had left
Gibraltar and worked in London and information given by him
confirmed some of the allegations

The DS was refused permission to travel to Gibraltar to continue
the investigation and upon government ministers/personnel becoming
aware of the investigation it was stopped and filed as 'No Crime':
thus John Stevens was added to those accused of perverting justice

An offer by the writer to travel to London, make a Statement and
provide evidence was declined

Much correspondence from the writer to the Commissioner and the
CPS/DPP is on record, mostly without response and there must be
documentation etc between the Met and/or government departments and
the office of the DPP/CPS, Attorney General (Goldsmith) etc etc

You will appreciate this is but a very small part of the total case
which involves numerous legal proceedings over many years and
includes the PSNI telling the Met there is merit in the case and
there should be a proper investigation, independent Solicitors
telling the CPS the same, Counsel giving Opinion there is Prima
Facie evidence of Perjury, an Independent UK Solicitor filing an
Application for a Voluntary Bill of Indictment to issue against the
Attorney-General for Gibraltar and totally perverse behaviour by
the FCO

I have supplied you with the date and reference numbers of the fax
in 1998 from which all other details ought to be traceable

I have not thought it appropriate to name the individual police
officer

If there is anything specific you require I can be contacted by
email or telephone

Given the nature of the case and it's implications it may well be
that some documentation may be difficult or impossible to find and
if that is the case, although it may not be in accordance with FOI
legislation it will, nonetheless, be important and useful
information

So far as the information I require under the FOI Act I am sure you
will appreciate that it includes all the documentation and
information held by the Metropolitan Police that the law requires
to be disclosed

Sincerely, David Schiller

Kevin,
Again thank you for your contact,

I'm having a problem with knowing quite what further information
you need. I am not sure precisely what information the FOI
legislation requires to be disclosed in this particular case but
would have thought my original request was fairly clear ie "I would
be obliged for a record of the investigating Officers notes/log etc
following telephone conversations and emails (from Gibraltar)
regarding PC Appeal No 70 of 1997 and allegations of perverting the
course of justice and perjury. Also of document/s relating to why
the investigation was stopped"

Although I didn't give specific information I would have expected
my name alone would be sufficient for you to trace the necessary
documents?

To be clear the case involves allegations of perverting justice by
a Privy Council 'judicial committee' and Foreign & Commonwealth
Office personnel in London and Gibraltar followed by allegations
against John Stevens and others in the CPS and DPP offices.

The 'investigation' was prematurely stopped and filed as 'No Crime'
upon Foreign Office personnel in London (and other government
personnel) becoming aware of the involvement of the Metropolitan
Police.

If it is your opinion that I am not entitled to the documentation
requested or the relevant papers/logs/notes etc have been
mis-placed or destroyed, please let me know. If you cannot trace
the relevant documentation or identify the investigation from the
information I have given you, again, please let me know

I will try to assist you further:-

The investigation was by the Organised Crime Group as referred to.
It was conducted by DS Greetham and although he was prepared to
carry out a proper investigation, take my statement, interview the
relevant individuals and be shewn evidence the investigation was
stopped by senior officers. That was done after government
personnel, some of whom were accused inter alia of perverting
justice, became aware of the investigation and the implications of
that should need no explanation. The responsible Senior Officer and
the one to whom subsequent correspondence was and is addressed is
the Commissioner of Police who at the time was John Stevens and
currently is Sir Ian Blair. (My last letter to Sir Ian was dated
7th April 2008)

You will understand that the Metropolitan Police are accused, by
virtue of John Stevens acts, of deliberately stopping a legitimate
investigation for which there is abundant and persuasive evidence

If it answers your question I am seeking discovery of all
documentation relevant to the investigation by DS Greetham into the
allegations of perjury and the perversion of justice that
originated in late 1998/early 1999 together with all other
documentation relative to such investigation and why it was stopped
and filed as No Crime

If it helps further:-

By letter dated 15th September 1998 (ref LB2D/tbf/98) the Chief
Crown Prosecutor (50 Ludgate Hill) referred me to The Organised
Crime Group, Room 476, Metropolitan Police. New Scotland Yard and a
further fax was received on the 22nd Sept '98

On the 26th Sept I wrote to the Organised Crime Group and confirmed
the letter by fax on the 28th

Not receiving any reply I wrote to the Commissioner (confirmed by
fax to 0044 171329 8366 on the 12th November 1998) seeking a
response to my contacts

I received a fax from DS Greetham on the 27th November explaining
he had only just received my letter and he had been in contact with
the CPS who had sent him a copy of my original letter to them.

DS Greetham said the only way to take the matter further is if we
spoke on the telephone or if I faxed him.

The fax from DS Greetham did not have a reference No but included
on the top:

"27/11/98 13.51 NEW SCOTLAND YARD ARTS ANTIQUES > 350 79061 No 423

I then faxed DS Greetham with an outline of the case and on the 8th
December he phoned me to say he would be coming out to Gibraltar to
take a Statement and he would phone me again soon

On the 11th January 1999 he phoned again to say that the case had
been referred to the CPS Droitwich to see if they would prosecute
if asked. He said London CPS would be prejudiced because they knew
Rhoda

Sincerely,D A Schiller

Dear Ben

Thank you for your response from which it is noted that you are
asserting that Section1(1)(a) of the FOI Act does not apply to the
case at hand by virtue of Section 40(5) of the Act

Please state whether you rely on Section 40(5)(a) and/or Section
40(5)(b)(i) and/or Section 40(5)(b)(ii)

Sincerely, david Schiller

Dear Ben

Thank you for your response from which it is noted you rely on all
parts of Sections 40(5) of the FOI Act to claim exemption from
complying with s1(1)(a) of it

The purpose of the legislation you rely on to claim the duty in
s1(1)(a) does not apply is quite properly to protect possible
injustice to individual citizens and if the information requested
contains material which offends against any legislation such
information can and should, to comply with both the law and its
'spirit', simply be removed from that disclosed
--------------
The request to know whether or not you hold certain information has
no direct bearing on any matter that could touch upon anybodies
rights (including the applicants) as referred to in any Data
Protection legislation and the notion that such rights could be
compromised by the request on grounds connected with such
legislation could not with any confidence be inferred.
You cannot reasonably assert that you don't hold the information
and know that if you did it would include information that offended
the Data Protection Act to the extent of exempting you from
complying with s1(1)(a) of the FOI Act Equally you cannot
reasonably assert that Section 40(5) has effect unless you know how
and why the parts of that section you have relied on apply; ergo,
you have confirmed that you do hold the information

Section 40(5) of the FOI Act exempts you from the duty to deny or
confirm whether you hold certain information; nothing more! By
virtue of the foregoing you have confirmed that you do have the
information requested

That is to say the effect of invoking the exemption you have
imports a confirmation that you hold the information sought and
thereby renders the exemption inoperative
--------------

Section 40(5)(1) on which you rely states "Any information to which
a request for information relates is exempt information if it
constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data
subject" and it is assumed that reference to the 'data subject' is
taken to refer to the applicant (me) and if that is the case I
doubt your reliance is justified.

The Metropolitan Police consulted the CPS in relation to the
reported crimes in 2006 and I received information from them in
response to a Subject Access Request. None of the information
supplied under that application would seem to support your reliance
on S40(5)(1)

For the record I have no objection to any information about myself
being made Public so long as it is true, unlike information
originating from the Foreign Office (Respondent) and made Public by
the European Commission of Human Rights in full knowledge of its
falsity

I would also put on record that I doubt I would properly be called
a 'member of the public' as referred to in the legislation since I
should perhaps be more appropriately termed an 'Informant' and
since you have refused to accept information from me or take a
Statement although I know certain information you possess I do not
know the full extent of it.

What I seek to ascertain is what you did with the limited
information you found yourself acquiring before John Stevens
stopped the investigation and what further information you have
that the Freedom of Information and/or any other legislation
requires you to disclose.

Sincerely, David Schiller

Dear Madam,

If you do not consider it appropriate to respond to the issues
raised before invoking other procedures and an 'internal review' is
the procedure thought to be helpful to you, yes

Sincerely, David Schiller

Dear Mr Baverstock,

Thank you for your response with the implied confirmation that the
Public Interest has been and is being served by the CPS's conduct :
it hasn't and it isn't, the office of the DPP and the CPS have
supported and continue to support a conspiracy to defeat Public
justice.

If the accused were 'members of the public' we can be sure the
matter would have been dealt with 'In the Public Interest'

For the record I will briefly respond to the points you have made:

1 Basically the information referred to in point 1 (i) and the
second part relates to whether or not the police and/or the CPS
made themselves aware of evidence and information relative to the
allegations and I repeat that one of

"The purposes of this request is to ascertain whether the CPS have
made themselves aware of that information or not. To date the
evidence would suggest either the CPS does not have the information
requested or are not acting 'In the Public Interest'"

I agree there is an element of seeking opinion and comment from the
CPS. Harmful to whom?

I also agree that my request at point 1 is accessible by other
means and the information can be obtained in case law books such as
Archbold etc and I am pleased to learn the CPS are aware that such
action is available

2 You have confirmed that you do not have information regarding the
conduct of Senior Crown Counsel who had charge of the Respondents
case in the appeal hearing: that information is clearly relevant to
the allegations made and ought to have been part of the police
investigation. That also applies to the last point you make.

You do now have that information!

Thank you for your attention

Sincerely, David Schiller

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am sorry but I have just sent a 'response' to you in error: it
should have gone elsewhere.
Please dis-regard it

Sorry for the inconvenience
Sincerely, D A Schiller

Yours sincerely,

Hello again Nigel

Thank you for your response which as you rightly say was not the
message I would have wished to receive : I am sorry for the delay
in my reply

You (the 'met') countered my request for information with various
requests of your own on the basis that you couldn't trace the
details of a case for which a crime report entry had been entered
(CRIS report) and in relation to which there is unending
correspondence from a variety of sources.
You then argued that disclosure of information could breach a
citizens rights to privacy and that would clearly only result from
improper procedure since any possible breach of a citizens rights
is protected by removing or redactimg appropriate information, as
others do

The facts available to the Met at the time they were asked to
investigate included :-

1 Evidence filed before all the courts in Gibraltar and the
judicial committee confirmed the Decision not to issue a licence
had nothing to do with the Governor of Gibraltar

2 Properly filed documentation by the Appellant and served on the
A-G in accordance with the Rules confirmed the Respondent did not
intend to oppose the Privy Council Appeal until the Registrar of
the Privy Council, on the 17th January 1998, wrote '...I was
interested to see that the Crown, at present at least, does not
intend to be represented at the hearing of the appeal, I am bound
to say nevertheless that their Lordships would welcome the
attendance of counsel.'
Following that, on the 11th February 1998, although the time for
doing so had expired, the Registrar confirmed 'The Attorney
Generals Office in Gibraltar …... will be lodging a case in due
course”
That was followed by the the filing of a Respondents Case 'out of
time' together with fresh evidence which was put before a judicial
committee for whom Lord Irvine had been chosen as Chairman and
which was to label The Crown as dishonest

3 Earlier the Registrar had asserted 'I must emphasise their
Lordships are only concerned with the documents which were before
the Court of Appeal...'
The 'fresh evidence' was to the effect that the Governor had made
the Decision complained of but it had been “...ascertained that the
file relating to such application was in fact destroyed ….” and the
Captains file “relating to this matter …...cannot now, be found”
There is evidence that a relevant file from the Governors office
was in the possession of the A-G and the Captains papers should, by
law, have been kept safe by the A-G

4 There are two versions of the procured Affidavits 'filed' in the
Privy Council proceedings ; one purportedly filed by Kevin Columbo
and the other by Albert Trinidad (Senior Crown Counsel)
Trinidad had charge of the appeal on behalf of the Respondent and
had earlier been Ordered, in separate legal proceedings in
Gibraltar, to explain why he had served an Affidavit on me which
differed from the version filed in the proceedings
The current Chief Justice (Schofield) did not pursue the matter
which remains on the record.
Earlier still Trinidad had been responsible for an Application to
the Chief Justice to have the A-G committed to prison for failing
to comply with a court Order regarding Discovery.
The available evidence suggests Trinidad concealed 'Discoverable
Documents'

5 Following the PC Appeal the DPP confirmed jurisdiction lay in the
UK and prosecutions would take place if supporting evidence were
available The Met contacted me to say they were having difficulty
contacting a particular ex governors liaison officer (FCO employee)
and asked for my help so I obtained the contact details and the DS
interviewed him. The ex-liaison officer confirmed my story (but
said he would not be happy to give evidence in court) The DS
managed to find a second FCO employee by himself. Both said they
were 'not prepared' to be witnesses

6 In a letter to The Rev Ian Paisley, the Director of Public
Prosecutions indicated he would 'take over and discontinue' any
privately brought criminal proceedings against those referred to
above 'In The Public Interest'
--

Political control of the judiciary is not 'In The Public Interest'
I cannot accept your attempt to exempt the Met police from having
to comply with the FoI Act and I hereby request that you reconsider
your decision not to supply the information requested and 'In the
Public Interest' review the Metropolitan Polices' response to the
allegations

Regards David Schiller

david schiller

Nigel,

My request for information was virtually turned into a request by
the MPS for me to help identify information that should be easily
accessible to you and it is surely difficult to understand your
inability to find any information? Having provided you with the
information you sought you neither confirmed or denied holding
pertinent information claiming that s1(1)(a) of the FoI Act did not
apply

The case includes the claim that upon the accused becoming aware of
the investigation it was stopped and filed as 'No Crime' by the
Commissioner

With regard to your proper concern that citizens rights should be
protected it is pertinent to point out, in addition to what has
already been said, that most of those accused of criminal behaviour
have already been publicly named and if any of their rights have
been violated there are adequate remedies available to them

Whilst accepting your argument regarding the protection of citizens
rights (which I trust you accept does not include their right to
commit a crime?) that does not mean you can deny or confirm holding
information that does not come into the 'protected' category and in
the case at hand it would clearly be futile for you to deny you had
some of the information requested since it includes information I
gave you and other information that you must know I also have – so
it becomes a question of why could you not locate the information
and have the files been removed and/or destroyed as our exchanges
appear to indicate?

Whether the files have been removed or not the MPS are now aware
that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that PC Appeal No 70
of 1997 was a blatant perversion of Justice and there remains a
clear duty for the Metropolitan Police to investigate the
allegations

That Duty is not dependant upon or related to any request under the
FoI Act or limited by time

I will repeat some more 'information' that the MPS has or had :-

The PSNI have had contact with the MPS regarding the case and
expressed the opinion that there should be an investigation
Counsel has given Opinion there is a prima facie case for perjury
in relation to the Affidavit evidence procured for and accepted by
the judicial committee

A UK lawyer has filed a Voluntary Bill of Indictment to issue
against Gibraltars A-G in connection with the subornation of
evidence which the Gibraltar court has refused to process

The Rules of Procedure governing appeals to Her Majesty in Council
were applied to the Appellant but not to the Respondent and in
recommending the Appeal be dismissed the judicial committee,
chaired by Lord Chancellor Irvine, have accused The Crown of being
dishonest : arguably an act of Treason
--
Both the MPS and CPS/DPP have implied that statements from
witnesses are of no benefit if the individual concerned is not
prepared to give evidence in court and relevant to that incredible
assertion is:-
Three FCO employees, none of whom were 'happy' about giving
evidence, were compelled to do so in the Gibraltar Magistrates
Court. (One of the employees, later interviewed by the MPS, muted
the possibility of claiming 'Diplomatic Immunity' to resist having
to give evidence)
The proceedings in the Magistrates court established that
statements to the original Judicial Review hearing that some
licences had been issued by the Captain of the Port were false
The FCO has lied to every court in Gibraltar, to the European
Commission of Human Rights and to Her Majesty 'in Council'
--
The way in which my family and self have been treated throughout
this affair is a disgrace and entirely without justification and
the support of such behaviour by those agencies and individuals
superficially entrusted with upholding and enforcing the law is
also a disgrace

As you infer a complaint to the ICO may be necessary but the MPS's
duty to investigate is not dependant on the outcome of any such
complaints procedure (which as you may know can take quite a long
time)

Please ensure that the present Commissioner is made fully aware of
this Case and approves the manner in which it has been dealt with

Regards, David Schiller