Duties of the force solicitor

Dear Sir or Madam,

I believe that the Constabulary's Chief Legal Advisor is Niamh
Noone. I also believe that she acts as solicitor to the Chief
Officer.

Please supply details of her diary, duties, meetings and places
that she worked/attended on 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 May 2009.

In her guise as Chief Legal advisor is Niamh Noone subject to the
Law Society Code of Conduct?

Yours faithfully,

Arthur Peasgill

Dear Hopkinson, Bryony,

Please conduct an internal review of this request. I make this
request on the following grounds and wish to indicate that the
exemptions quoted are totally inapplicable in each case. Clearly
the public interest lies in the release of this information because
any information in existence has only been generated in the course
of public employment and cannot prejudice anything in any way and
certainly not the facets as suggested in your response.

Further many such duties, meetings, places as attended during the
course of publicly funded employment and by such a senior figure in
a Constabulary as the Head of the Constabulary's Legal Department
will/should be minuted/recorded in any event in order to comply
with any transparency and openness requirements. In this I cannot
fathom why the exemptions offered are in any way applicable.

Section 30.

I have asked for no information that will impact upon nor prejudice
any criminal investigations be this either possible or likely. Nor
did I intend to do so. "Likely to prejudice" an investigation is
also a stringent legal test. The exemption cannot be applied
lawfully just because the information requested is potentially
involved in a police investigation and "might be a risk to" the
investigation. Please supply the information as requested.

However I withdraw the request in relation to 10 May 2009 which was
a Sunday. My apologies for this oversight.

Section 42.

I have only requested general duties, venues of meetings and places
of work on 6 (now 5) specific days. These meetings etc could
possibly be, for example, at police HQ, Lancashire County Hall,
Preston City Council, the Old Bailey, the Supreme Court or other.
Such public buildings have numerous and widespread rooms. Therefore
to request only very general venues of meetings etc from a public
servant as funded by the taxpayer cannot even be deemed to likely
breach legal professional privilege which is only involved in the
personal client/solicitor relationship in any event. You have also
indicated that to release such information could only potentially
breach the principle which is insufficient under the exemption.
Further you have clearly already confirmed/indicated who Miss
Noone's clients are namely the Chief Officer and the force and that
would not serve to prejudice anything. For example I would have to
actually be present at the meeting or the whole content of the
meeting would have to be disclosed to prejudice legal professional
privilege.

However I withdraw the request in relation to 10 May 2009 which was
a Sunday. My apologies for this oversight.

Section 40.

I have clearly only requested information directly relevant to Miss
Noone's role as a publicly funded public servant directly related
to Miss Noone's role as that public servant. I am not interested in
any of her personal data. If Ms Noone wishes to moonlight or
otherwise outside of the remit of her role as a public servant that
is none of my business and I'm not interested. Further if Ms Noone
wishes to attend doctor's appointments, hairdressing appointments,
school functions, go shopping or similar during work or taxpayer
funded time then that is also none of my business and I'm not
interested. I am only interested in public data as generated in her
role as a publicly funded public servant. Your use of this
exemption is taking credulity too far.

However I withdraw the request in relation to 10 May 2009 which was
a Sunday. My apologies for this oversight.

In summary the exemptions as utilised are, quite frankly,
ridiculous. I want absolutely nothing personal and only require
information generated in the context of publicly funded paid
employment.

Can you please acknowledge that you have received this request for
a review safely? I look forward to a full reply by Tuesday 15
December 2009.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Peasgill

Dear Melling, Carl,

Thank you for your response.

If nothing it was entertaining.

I will proceed to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Peasgill