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

From: Kevin Simmons
Policy Support Team - Freedom of Information

To: David Schiller

Good Morning Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your request.

To assist in answering your request, could you please the following details:

1.Which Metropolitan Police investigation does your request the refer to?
2.The date of this investigation?
3.Which branch of the Metropolitan Police had the allegation of perverting the course of justice and perjury made against them?

show quoted sections

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

Dear Mr Schiller

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008040004511

I write in connection with your request for information dated which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14th April 2008. I
note you seek access to the following information:

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.

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and
the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment
from you. If you choose not to make payment then your request will remain
unanswered.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
the MPS.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Kevin Simmons on telephone number 020 7161 3631 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Simmons
Policy and Support Officer

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 three months.

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 Schiller

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2008040004511

I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14 April 2008. I
note you seek access to the following information:

· 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.

This is to inform you that I cannot identify any specific records /
documents that will satisfy your request based on the details you have
provided. To enable the MPS to meet your request could you please provide
this office with further information. I provide some guidance that may
assist you more clearly describe the information you require:

After receiving the above request and your clarification, it is still very
difficult to understand what your are requesting under Freedom of
Information. Could you please clarify your request.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
23rd July 2008, I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this
request and will treat it as withdrawn.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and
the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment
from you. If you chose not to make a payment then your request will
remain unanswered.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
the MPS and look forward to your response.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Kevin Simmons on telephone number 020 7161 3631 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Simmons
Policy and Support Officer

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 three months.

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

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

From: Kevin Simmons
Policy Support Team - Freedom of Information

To: Mr David A Schiller

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your message.

Although you recount a certain event that happened in the late 1990's, for the purposes of trying to comply with your request under the Freedom of Information Act it is still unclear what documents you are requesting.

Can you please say what information from which Metropolitan Police investigation you are requesting?

Kind Regards,

Kevin Simmons.

show quoted sections

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 Mr Schiller,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008040004511

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 13th April
2008, which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on the
same date. I note you seek access to the following information:

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.

Please accept this letter as an acknowledgement of receipt of your
request, which has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), this
letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request. The
Metropolitan Police Service neither confirms nor denies that it holds the
information you requested as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Act does not
apply by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 40 (5) of the act provides:

(5) The duty to confirm or deny-

(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held
by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of
subsection (1), and

(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent
that either-

(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial
that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart
from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section
10 of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the
exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or

(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that
Act (data subject's right to be informed whether personal data being
processed).

show quoted sections

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 Mr Schiller,

I am relying on all of the sections mentioned below.

Kind Regards

Ben Sayers
Senior Information Manager

show quoted sections

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 Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your email below in relation to case number 2008040004511.

Please can you confirm if you are requesting an internal review of the original decision?

Regards,

Ms S. Pallen
Policy and Support Team

Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

T: 020 7161 3604
F: 020 7161 3503

show quoted sections

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. A Schiller,

Freedom of Information Complaint Reference No: 2008050004607

I write in connection with your email dated 18 May 2008, requesting that
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your request
for information.

The review will be conducted in accordance with the MPS's complaints
procedure and the MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 18 August
2008.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Mr. Nigel Shankster on telephone number 02071613649 or at the
email address at the top quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster
Senior Information Access Manager
Public Access Office
Metropolitan Police Service

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 three months.

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 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,

Dear Mr. Schiller,

Freedom of Information Complaint, Reference No: 2008050004607

Further to my letter of 23 May 2008, I am now able to provide a response
to your complaint dated 18 May 2008.

DECISION

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

Uphold and vary the original decision.

REASON FOR DECISION

I fully appreciate that this is not the message you would wish to have
received, however, any disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation
is considered disclosure to the wider world, not just the applicant. In
this instance, the original decision taken to apply Section 40(5), was, I
believe, entirely correct.

Following my review of this case, I concur with that decsion, the
Metropolitan Police Service would neither confirm or deny that a
particular individual had involvement with police via these means, to do
so would breach their and other individuals right to privacy, thereby
breaching Data Protection Act 1998 principles.

I also consider it appropriate, following the review, to include Section
30(3), where the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in respect of
information that may or may not be held by the Metropolitan Police
Service, which would be exempt by virtue of Section 30(1). This exemption
refers to information obtained in or during the course of an investigation
and by virtue of Section 17(4), the refusal to neither confirm nor deny is
based upon the fact that to provide a statement of the reasons behind this
particular decision, would itself involve disclosure of information
considered exempt.

Whilst still neither confirming or denying that the Metropolitan Police
hold information pertinent to your request in pursuance of Section 1(1)a,
by virtue of Section 40(5)(a)(i) and 30(3), should the request be in
respect of / or pertinent to your personal information, please see the
attached internet link, which explains the procedure and provides the
necessary forms.

http://www.met.police.uk/information/inf...

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.

However, should you have any particualr inquiries concerning this matter,
please contact me on 02071613649 or at the email address at the top of
this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster
Senior Information Access Manager
Public Access Office
Metropolitan Police Service

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 three months.

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