Cyclist deaths and corporate manslaughter

Dear Greater London Authority,

I should be grateful for copies of all correspondence, email,
letters, instant messages, meeting minutes, reports, spreadsheets,
advice and other records held by the GLA, in particular the Mayor's
office (broadly defined) including correspondence with the police
service, the met police commissioners, DfT, the coroner that
mention possible liability for corporate manslaughter or other
liability under the 2007 Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate
Homicide Act.

This request covers the period 1 October 2011 to 1 January 2012 and
focuses upon corporate manslaughter of cyclists but would include
general opinions on corporate manslaughter liability within that
period. I am particularly interested in information (as above) held
by the Mayor's office and his advisors, including Mr Kulveer
Ranger. I have made a similar request to TfL itself.

The possible exposure of TfL to prosecution for corporate
manslaughter was first raised in an article i wrote on 14 October
about the death of a cyclist at a junction in Kings Cross
http://kingscrossenvironment.com/2011/10...

A TfL spokesman was on BBC London news on 18 October. TfL have
recently agreed to a review of the Kings Cross junction but does
not mention whether the actions they take are to avoid or address
potential CM liability.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/ne...

There will no doubt be internal documents that discuss the
corporate manslaughter issue.

This request covers death of people - there is the highest possible
public interest in transparency and understanding what is going on.

I cannot conceive of a defence that TfL might mount for not
publishing information it might hold that would be supported by the
ICO, including formation of policy and legal privilege defences. I
am mindful of recent rulings by the ICO that personal email and
messaging services used in a work capacity (such as personal
hotmail, gmail etc accounts) are covered by FOI.

My preferred format to receive this information is by electronic
means.

If one part of this request can be answered sooner than others,
please send that information first followed by any subsequent data.

If you seek to reject this request on procedural means i shall
simply resubmit the request amended slightly and/or seek an
internal review, which i shall then take the the ICO on appeal.

If you need any clarification of this request please feel free to
email me. If FOI requests of a similar nature have already been
asked could you please include your responses to those requests.

Yours faithfully,

william perrin