Track this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Some information sent by Home Office to dennis fallon on 15 March 2010.
All information sent by Department for Children, Schools and Families to Mark Jones on 1 May 2008.
Response by Transport for London to P DOYLE on 1 April 2009.
Excessive use of speed by Police vehicles.
A Freedom of Information request to Lancashire Constabulary by Paul Darlington
Lancashire Constabulary did not have the information requested.
Paul Darlington
13 August 2008
Dear Sir or Madam,
The incident with which I am concerned occurred between 18.20 and
18.40 hrs, Thursday 7th August 2008 on the M6 northbound in
Lancashire between junctions 33 (Lancaster South) and 35
(Carnforth).
A marked Mercedes Benz M-class registration number PJ 52 EPE was
observed travelling consistently at very high speed well in excess
of the prevailing (70 mph) limit. The vehicle was not displaying
flashing blue lights nor alternate headlight flashing.
Please will you explain the nature of the mission upon which the
driver was engaged and specifically why it was necessary to proceed
at a speed so significantly in excess of the rest of the traffic.
If the vehicle was responding to an emergency, why were warning
lights not used?
If the vehicle was not so responding, is it Lancashire
Constabulary's policy to condone the use of excessive speed (and
fuel consumption) in the course of general police duties?
Yours faithfully,
Paul Darlington.
Walker, Paul
Lancashire Constabulary
29 August 2008
Paul,
Please find attached our response to your request received on the 13^th
August 2008.
Many Thanks,
Paul.
Paul Walker
Lancashire Constabulary
Information Assurance Unit
show quoted sections
Christopher left an annotation (29 August 2008)
It's a little unfair to overlook the pertinent part of the force's rejection, i.e. that they don't respond to requests for "explanation or opinion."
I would have said that your text "please will you *explain* the nature of the mission" formed a request for an explanation.
At least now we've gained an insight into how to phrase things more concisely and within the bounds of the Act! :)
Stephen Gradwick left an annotation (30 August 2008)
They seem to me to be being purposefully obstructive.
If the vehicle in question was on police business then they will have details of the nature and purpose of the journey being undertaken.
If the vehicle was being used privately, then the Professional Standards Unit need to look into various road traffic offences on the part of the police officer driving the vehicle in excess of the speed limit.
I would at least request an internal review challenging the definition of 'explanation' (you certainly haven't asked for an opinion). Just because you have not asked for a specifically named report from their computer systems which would identify the purpose of the journey, does not mean that the information is not 'held' by the authority.
Hope this helps...
Best wishes :)
stephen mccracken left an annotation (31 August 2008)
I have been requesting many pieces information under FOI and the Data Protection Act 1998 since January 2005, mostly from my local trusts and the PSNI, I personally issue my requests referring to the above two acts as not all requests are covered by FOI alone, and it does take you to be very careful with the wording of the request and i always include a "the information requested be it on print, electronic device or any other media" on one occasion i asked for a letter i knew existed but had since been destroyed but a copy of it was held on a central database, i only asked for the print version so request was denied and i asked again using above and i finally got what i was after, crafty lot these information officers, and it takes you to be on the ball so to speak, take nothing for granted and be as specific as possible, dates time and personnel involved if known, wording can reject you request.
Francis Irving left an annotation (1 September 2008)
I've marked this as "not held", although it is a mixture of "not held" / "requires clarification".
Paul, if persuing it I would start a new request and ask for specific documents, rather than an explanation - perhaps phone the FOI officer first to work out what you can ask for that they do have (e.g. minutes, reports)
Also, of course, try contacting the Northern Division Road Policing Unit as they suggest, and if you do get anything back from them do leave an annotation here.
I think in this case the FOI officer is genuinely trying to be helpful, as he does give somewhere where you can probably get the information!
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
Paul Darlington left an annotation (29 August 2008)
Wrong.
"please will you explain the nature of the mission..."is obviously a request for information, not opinion.
I shall have to write direct to the Chief Constable.
Link to this