Dear Sir or Madam,

With reference to our disclosures and technical arguments
contesting the results of the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation
(RFI) into the sinking of the FV Gaul, arguments which have been
published online over the last two years.

Your Department informed us that, as required by law, their
in-house experts had analysed this evidence and decided that there
were no grounds for a re-opening of the investigation.

We would now like to ask the DfT to provide us with the technical
justification behind their latest decision and, if possible, with
the identities of those in-house experts who produced that
justification.

Since the Gaul investigation was a public inquiry, conducted in the
public interest and paid for by the public, we see no reason why
this information should not be made available to us.

Yours faithfully,

D. Drysdale

Sir / Madam,

Please find attached comfirmation of receipt of your Freedom of
Information request.

Regards,
Adam Paine.

0207 944 2637

Great Minster House
London
SW1P 4DR

Think before you print to save energy and paper.
Only print this message if you really need to.

show quoted sections

Dear Adam Paine,

With reference to my FOI request 'Evidence undermining the results
of the 2004 FV Gaul Formal Investigation' of 4 July 2008.

I am writing to remind you that the Department has not replied
within the 20 working days they are allowed by law.

I would be grateful if you could send me an answer in the very near
future

Many thanks,

Yours sincerely,

Daniela Drysdale

Dear Sir or Madam,

Following my FOI request of 4 July 2008 (filed online at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ev...)
to which the Department has not replied within the 20 working days
allowed by law, I am now writing to you to request an internal
review.

Grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of this message.

Many thanks,

Daniela Drysdale

Yours sincerely,

Sir / Madam,

Please see attached the Department's response to your FOI enquiry
requesting details of the technical justification behind a decision not
to reopen any part of the Gaul reopened formal inquiry and the
identities of in-house experts used to inform that decision.

Regards,
Adam Paine.

Think before you print to save energy and paper.
Only print this message if you really need to.

show quoted sections

Dear Adam Paine,

With reference to your reply of 18 August above, which states that
the DfT’s decision not to re-open the Gaul RFI "fully sets out the
Secretary of State’s reasoning in relation to the re-opening of the
investigation".

The Department’s statement is untrue. The reply previously received
from the Secretary of State in response to our objections only
mentions that "the Department is satisfied that there is no reason
to doubt the outcome of the expert analysis that led to the
Re-opened Formal Investigations conclusions and consequently there
is no reason to re-open the investigation", reply which, to us, is
not a full explanation of her reasoning, but merely a declaration
of faith.

I would therefore be grateful if the DfT could finally advise what
the Secretary of State’s reasoning was in fact – i.e. on what
grounds exactly her decision not to re-open the Gaul RFI was taken
– i.e. which of our items of evidence and arguments she disputes,
and what are her specific counter-arguments.

In accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act 1985, it is the
obligation of the Secretary of State for Transport to consider
contesting evidence and decide on a possible re-opening of the
investigation on that basis. We have provided ample technical
evidence (including new and important evidence items), which
invalidates the conclusions of the 2004 RFI, and we have made a
number of disclosures, which clearly indicate that a miscarriage of
justice had occurred. Our argumentation was put together by a naval
architect, employee of the Martime and Coastguard Agency (an
executive agency of the DfT and main source of specialist advice
for the Department) who had been personally involved in the
research leading to the 2004 inquiry.

Since much of the evidence that we have provided was technical in
nature, it is only natural to assume that the Secretary of State
would make use of some form of expert advice in order to assess it,
before reaching a final decision.

Grateful if you could clarify this matter without further delay.

Yours sincerely,

Daniela Drysdale