Disclosure of Specific Documents Leaked to Damian Green

Dear Sir or Madam,

In the response to an earlier FoI request I was directed to a note
published by the CPS which lists a number of documents acknowledged
to have been leaked to Damian Green MP.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/deci...

Please will you disclose to me the documents identified in that
memo which were leaked to Mr. Damian Green MP;

Leak One: "Asylum and Immigration High Level Monthly Performance
Report July 2007" (found in Mr. Green's possession, marked
'Galley').

Leak Two: "high level submissions to Home Office Ministers in
August 2007, updating them about various issues relating to
Security Industry Authority (SIA) licences" (Mr Galley admitted
sending this document to Mr Green)

Leak Three: "a report to Home Office Ministers dated 31 January
2008 about an investigation into an allegedly illegal worker at the
Houses of Parliament" (Mr Galley admitted posting this document to
Mr Green)

Leak Four A: "Briefing on the Counter-Terrorism Bill" prepared for
the Home Secretary

Leak Four B: "a Whips' list of the names of MPs who were undecided
about their votes in respect of the Counter-Terrorism Bill" (Mr
Galley told the Police that he had access to this document which
was kept in a safe belonging to the Special Advisers: he admitted
photocopying the list and handing it to Mr Green)

Leak Five: "a "Draft letter to No 10" dated August 2008, predicting
that the credit crunch would lead to a rise in crime. It was not
marked "Restricted" " (Mr Galley admitted passing this document to
Mr Green)

Leak Six: "a Briefing Pack for incoming Ministers at the Home
Office" (Mr Galley denied leaking this document, Mr Green made no
comment in interview)

To recap, Mr. Starmer's report states;

"32. In this case, I have concluded that there is little evidence
of any additional damage caused by the leaks in question. The
documents leaked undoubtedly touched on matters of legitimate
public interest and Mr Green's purpose in using the documents was
apparently to hold the government to account. The extensive
coverage of the issues by the national press, along with comments
from Government and Opposition sources is evidence of this."

"33. The information contained in the documents was not secret
information or information affecting national security: it did not
relate to military, policing or intelligence matters. It did not
expose anyone to a risk of injury or death. Nor, in many respects,
was it highly confidential. Much of it was known to others outside
the civil service, for example, in the security industry or the
Labour Party or Parliament. These examples are not an exhaustive
list of the types of information that may be damaging for the
purposes of the offence of misconduct in public office."

Given those documents post little risk of damage, touch on matters
of legitimate public interest, hold the Government to account, have
been extensively reported in the national press, were not secret,
did not affect national security, did not relate to
military/policing/intelligence matters, did not expose anyone to
risk of injury or death, nor were highly confidential... please
disclose the listed documents without further delay.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's
handling of my FOI request 'Disclosure of Specific Documents Leaked
to Damian Green'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/di...

As you state, I'm disappointed that you have refused to disclose
this information.

Your reasons for rejecting my request focus on concerns about the
manner in which these documents were originally leaked (rather than
the content of the documents themselves). That matter is irrelevant
to the content of the documents themselves.

Contrary to your assertions, Keir Starmer concluded there was
**little evidence of damage** caused by the leaks, the information
concerns matters of **legitimate public interest**, and the
documents would thus allow the Government to be **held to account**
for its actions.

The information requested was not secret, and supposedly was
already known to many people in the security industry, the Labour
Party, and Parliament.

I understand the extraordinary 'disciplinary' measures taken by the
Home Office against Christopher Galley to have concluded.

Those measures included investigations by senior anti-terrorism
officers who were specifically selected for the role, raids on Mr
Green's home and Parliamentary office, police interviews at
Paddington Green, and detention of Mr Galley at an RAF base. Those
actions are reminiscent to many of the actions of 1930's Germany,
or a police state, not the expected behaviour of 21st century
democratic western European government.

Democracy is not served by concealing information that is not
secret, causes little damage, and concerns matters of legitimate
public interest. On the contrary, democracy is served by the open
disclosure of such information in order that the Government can be
held to account. It would seem Home Office embarrassment and shame
is the only reason why this information is being concealed from the
public.

In Chris Huhne MP's view; "Senior civil servants appear to have
confused their own embarrassment with national security, and misled
the police into believing that national security was involved".

Would it make a difference if I had a Labour party membership card,
worked in the security industry, or took a role as a researcher in
Parliament? Apparently so, because such people have already been
given access to this information.

Why is this information about matters of legitimate public interest
available to them, and not to any other UK citizen?

Please disclose this information without further delay.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Ms Pottinger,

Concerning the FoI Internal Review requested as below
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/di...

You may already be aware, Sir Ian Johnson (former British Transport
Police Chief) has completed an official inquiry, the conclusions of
which were published today.

To quote Sir Ian,

"I recognise the significant political context in which the leaks
occurred and the professional anxiety they caused within the civil
service.

"However, I regard the leaks for which [Christopher] Galley can be
clearly held responsible in law, as amounting to 'embarrassment
matters' for government.

"I do not think, from the material presented to me, that the leaks
in themselves are likely to undermine government's effectiveness."

As I highlighted in my original request, Keir Starmer (DPP) reached
similar conclusions after reviewing the evidence against Mr. Galley
and Mr. Green (and dismissing all charges against both men).

David Cameron MP stated "[Damian Green] was calling the government
to account, he was holding them to account for the things they had
done, the mistakes they made".

Chris Huhne MP stated "It is disgraceful that the Government has
exaggerated national security concerns in order to play politics
and hide its own embarrassment".

The Home Affairs Committe also considered the claims of damage
exaggerated.

Senior Ex Police Officers, Senior Crown Prosecutors, Senior MPs,
and Parliamentary Committees have all reached much the same
conclusions.

The documents I have requested you to disclose to me would present
no security concern, caused little if any damage to Government, and
it was in the public interest for the documents to be disclosed (to
allow the Government to be held to account for embarrassing
mistakes and failures).

Please disclose the documents requested, and please do so without
any further unnecessary delay.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Ms Pottinger,

In your most recent response to my FoI request (below) you stated
that I could expect to receive the results of an internal review by
18th November 2009.

With regret, if I do not received a response to this request for
internal review in the next 48 hours, the matter will be placed in
the hands of the Information Commissioners Office.

Senior Politicians, Senior Ex Police Officers, Senior Crown
Prosecutors, and Parliamentary Committees have all reached similar
conclusions: the information I have requested from you poses no
national security threat, and concerns matters of legitimate public
interest.

The Information Commissioner recently stated "Everyone in receipt
of public funds has got to wake up and smell the coffee and realise
that we have had five years of freedom of information now and
that's the deal - you get the money and you're accountable".

Please disclose the information requested without any further
delay.

many thanks,
Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Mr Brook,

I believe (assuming you have received the full copy of the ICO
decision notice) you may find my home address is included.

Otherwise, I will be writing to you today with the same
information.

Yours sincerely,

P. John