Details of CPS's involvement with the allegations of 'perverting the course of justice' in relation to Privy Council Appeal No 70 of 1997

david schiller made this Freedom of Information request to Crown Prosecution Service

Crown Prosecution Service did not have the information requested.

From: david schiller

14 April 2008

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

Link to this

From: Freedom of Information Unit
Crown Prosecution Service

15 April 2008

Attachment image001.jpg
1K Download

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

Link to this

From: Freedom of Information Unit
Crown Prosecution Service

7 May 2008

Attachment image002.jpg
1K Download

Attachment DPA Response.pdf
79K Download View as HTML

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

Link to this

From: david schiller

12 May 2008

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

Link to this

From: Freedom of Information Unit
Crown Prosecution Service

14 May 2008

Attachment image001.jpg
1K Download

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

Link to this

From: Freedom of Information Unit
Crown Prosecution Service

19 May 2008

Attachment image001.jpg
1K Download

Attachment S17 Schiller1299.doc
32K Download View as HTML

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

Link to this

From: david schiller

27 May 2008

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

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Crown Prosecution Service only: