Dear Sir or Madam, In 1998 or thereabouts the 'Met' contacted the
CPS regarding criminal allegations relating to PC Appeal 70 of
1997. Because one of the accused is an ex-CPS employee the matter
was referred to an office outside London and I would now request
disclosure of all the relevant documentation relating to the CPS's
involvement, including that of David Calvert-Smith and Ken
MacDonald (as DPP)

Sincerely, David Schiller

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received on
the 14 April 2008 and I am dealing with it under the terms of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Please note there is a 20 working day limit (from receipt of request) in
which we are required to respond to requests under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. The deadline for your request is the 13 May 2008.
However, we will endeavour to respond sooner.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, I
will let you know the likely charges before proceeding.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Unit

Crown Prosecution Service

show quoted sections

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information Act request dated 14 April
2008 for information about the CPS's involvement relating to Privy
Council Appeal No 70 of 1997.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory
right of access to information, not documentation, held by public
authorities, i.e. the Crown Prosecution Service. 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 and is subject
to a number of exceptions and exemptions that are contained within the
Act. The majority of these exemptions are qualified, that is to say that
the decision to confirm or deny the information's existence or to
disclose the requested material will be subject to a public interest
test.

The Freedom of Information Act is a public disclosure regime, not a
private regime. Any information disclosed under it is thereafter deemed
to be in the public domain, and therefore freely available to the
general public.

The information you have requested was originally considered for
disclosure under the Data Protection Act 1998 in April 2006. A number of
items were disclosed to you under the Data Protection Act and I have
attached a copy of this Unit's response for your information. This has
been provided to you outside of the Freedom of Information regime to
safe guard your privacy from the public.

Further, it would appear that the only new information held regarding
this matter has been generated from you by way of correspondence. It is
therefore considered that the information you have requested is already
reasonably accessible to you under section 21 of the Freedom of
Information Act, and in this instance we have not provided you with this
information.

In addition, please note the Freedom of Information Act cannot be used
as a substitute for the CPS complaints procedure, and I believe you have
now exhausted this procedure.

If you are unhappy with the decisions made in relation to your request
from the Crown Prosecution Service you may ask for an internal review
within two calendar months of the date of this letter. If you wish to
request an internal review, please contact the Freedom of Information
Unit (Appeals), 50 Ludgate Hill, London, EC4M 7EX.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

R Baverstock

Information Management Unit

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Baverstock,

Thank you for your response to my request and the advice which is
appreciated. I apologise for not phrasing my request more
appropriately I will try to be more specific and with your comments
in mind will endeavour to explain the reason for my requests which
may also explain why it could be considered in the Public Interest
that they should be answered constructively

First I will respond to some of your comments:-

a It is accepted that the Freedom of Information Act is a public
disclosure regime and most of the information relevant to the case
at hand is in the public domain and freely available to all 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'

b You infer the existence of some information in your possession
was not disclosed under the Data Protection Act in 2006 and if you
claim the information to also be exempt from disclosure under the
FOI Act please confirm that "in all the circumstances of the case,
the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to
confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in disclosing whether
the public authority holds the information"

c I do not seek, as you suggest, to use the FOI Act as a substitute
for the CPS complaints procedure but to use it as was considered
appropriate by parliament: 'to be informed in writing by the public
authority whether it holds information of the description
specified' or to be given a lawful reason for not doing so. If the
Metropolitan police had not refused to take a Statement from me and
the DPP (CPS) had agreed to be shown certain evidence this request
may not have been necessary. It is irrelevant that a request may
have consequences that are un-comfortable for the authority
concerned; it is the law and applicable to all notwithstanding the
perceived ability of the DPP to protect those of his choosing from
the consequences of flouting the criminal law In fact it is
axiomatic that the more uncomfortable the disclosure of certain
information is for a given authority, the more useful is the Act in
achieving it's stated aims, viz: "it will often be a private
interest in withholding information which would reveal incompetence
on the part of or corruption within the public authority or which
would simply cause embarrassment to the authority. However, the
public interest will favour accountability and good administration
and it is this interest that must be weighed against the public
interest in not disclosing the information" ------------- Please
inform me whether the CPS holds any of the following information:

1 Having particular regard to the Privy Council Registrars
assertion that ".....their Lordships are only concerned with the
documents which were before the Court of Appeal, plus the judgment
and order of that court." does the CPS have any information as to:-

(i) how and/or why the Respondent was permitted to place fresh
affidavit evidence before the judicial committee and:-

(ii) any information including case law regarding criminal or civil
proceeding in which Affidavit evidence has been accepted without
opportunity given to the other party to dispute it's veracity

2 Information regarding the outcome of a Gibraltar court Order
relating to the interference with affidavit evidence and directed
at Albert Trinidad (Crown Counsel) who had control of the
Respondents case and was involved in the filing of the fresh
affidavits in the PC Appeal?

3 Given the requirement that documents relevant to legal
proceedings must be kept safe and an earlier case in which the
Respondent was Ordered to make Discovery and which, because of the
way it was dealt with by Trinidad resulted in an Application to
commit the Attorney-General to prison, does the CPS have any
information as to whether the A-G's chambers (or anywhere else)
were searched for two files, one said to be missing and the other
destroyed in the affidavits procured for and filed in the appeal?

Sincerely, David Schiller

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your email dated 12 May 2008.

The points you raise have been noted and a substantive response will
follow shortly.

Yours Sincerely,

Freedom of Information Unit

Crown Prosecution Service

14 May 2008

show quoted sections

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your Freedom of Information Act request dated 12 May 2008.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory
right of access to information, not documentation, held by public
authorities, i.e. the Crown Prosecution Service. 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 Freedom of Information Act is a public disclosure regime, not a
private regime. Any information disclosed under it is thereafter deemed
to be in the public domain, and therefore freely available to the
general public.

The information you have requested at point 1 (i) is not recorded
information held by the CPS. Please note the Freedom of Information Act
entitles you to recorded information held at the time of the request
being made. A public authority is not obliged to create new information
to respond to a Freedom of Information request. Additionally, it is
considered that this request seeks opinion and comment rather than
recorded information already held by the CPS.

Further, it is considered that the second part of your request at point
1 is reasonably accessible to you by other means as at section 21 of the
exemptions under the Act. If you wish, you can obtain case law books
such as Archbold, Westlaw, and Blackstone's, at your local library and
research the specific information you require.

With regard to point 2 of your request, I can confirm that this
information is not held by the CPS.

Lastly, the CPS does not hold information as to whether the Attorney
General's offices (or anywhere else) were searched for the two files you
mention within your request. Once again, please note a public authority
is not obliged to create new information in order to comply with a
request under the Act.

I can only reiterate as per my previous correspondence with you dated 7
May 2008, that you have been provided with the majority of the
information held by the CPS concerning this particular matter under the
Data Protection Act 1998. The very small limited amount of information
that has not been disclosed to you was either covered by the exemption
at section 29(1) crime or taxation, or that relating to third party
data, section 7(4).

If this information were to be considered for release under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000, it would be exempt from disclosure as the
following exemptions would apply: section 21 (information reasonably
accessible by other means), section 30 (information held for criminal
proceedings) and section 40 (2) (information held relating to third
party data). Further details concerning the use of these exemptions are
attached in the section 17 notice.

If you are unhappy with the decisions made in relation to your request
from the Crown Prosecution Service you may ask for an internal review
within two calendar months of the date of this letter. If you wish to
request an internal review, please contact the Freedom of Information
Unit (Appeals), 50 Ludgate Hill, London, EC4M 7EX.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have
the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a
decision. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

R Baverstock

Information Management Unit

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