Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to know what external business operations have been
sanctioned under Regulation 7 of the Police Regulations Act 2003
regarding PC 1973 Mark Dias, Middlesbrough Police.

Furthermore, I would like to know all the activities he can carry
out and those he specifically cannot carry out in his external
business operations.

Would his sanctioned external business operations allow him to work
in a private hospital as a Human Resources Consultant and could he
defend this organisation at an employment tribunal?

I also wish to know who approved his external business operations
and on what date.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Roy Bannister

Dear Mr Bannister
Enquiry Ref : 2008/1247
I write in connection with your request for information dated 18th July 2008.

Cleveland Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in Section1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemptions:

S40(5) Personal information

This letter, however, should not be taken as confirmation that we hold the information you have requested.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, information that is disclosed is released to the world and not just to the individual applicant. As such, Cleveland Police would not wish to confirm or deny to the public at large whether information is held in relation to an individual.

If you are not satisfied with this response or any actions taken in dealing with your request you have the right to request that we review your case under our review procedure. If you decide to request that such a review is undertaken and following this process you are still dissatisfied you then have the right to direct your complaint to the Information Commissioner for consideration

If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours Sincerely,

Jim Conlin
FOI Decision Maker
Public information Unit
Tel 01642 306825

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Conlin,

Enquiry Ref: 2008/1247
I refer to your reply dated 23rd July 2008.

I had previously requested the information in my 18th July 2008
correspondence from Cleveland Police who suggested that I submit a
Freedom Of Information request. Therefore, having followed the
Cleveland Police suggestion, you now choose to deny my request.

I am not satisfied with your response and the fact that Cleveland
Police suggested that I submit a Freedom of Information request and
then rejected it. Therefore, I request that you review my request
under your review procedure.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Mr R Bannister

Dear Mr Bannister,

Enquiry Ref : 2008/1247

I acknowledge receipt of your E mail dated 24 July 2008 requesting that we review our response to your request for information concerning What external business operations have been sanctioned with regard to PC 1973 Dias and his involvement with a private hospital.. My understanding is that the issues you have raised are as follows:-

"You are not satisfied that Cleveland Police suggested that you submit a freedom of information request and then reject that request"

The review will be conducted and we will aim to respond by 02 September 2008. However, if we are unable to complete the review by this date we will advise you accordingly.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Conlin
FOI Decision Maker
Public Information Unit
Tel 01642 306825

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Bannister,

Re: Freedom of Information Enquiry Ref: 2008/1247

I have been appointed to undertake an internal review of the decision on
release in response to your request for information regarding business
operations sanctioned under the Police Regulations 2003. I confirm that I
was not a party to the original decision on disclosure.

I have been provided with a copy of your request for information dated 18
July 2008, the response from the Force Public Information Unit dated 23
July 2008 and your request for an internal review of the decision dated 24
July 2008.

I have considered your application afresh taking account of the matters
you raised in your request for an internal review. I am satisfied that the
original decision complied with the legislation.

The outcome of the internal review is that the original decision is
upheld.

If you are not satisfied with the outcome of the internal review you have
the right to direct your complaint to the Information Commissioner for
consideration, at the following address:

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

CM Llewellyn

Solicitor to the Chief Constable

Caroline Llewellyn

Solicitor to the Chief Constable

Tel - 01642 301226

Fax - 01642 301462

e-mail - [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Bannister,

Enquiry Ref : 2008/1247

Following your request for us to review our previous response in connection with your request for information dated 18 July 2008 concerning What external business operations have been sanctioned with regard to PC 1973 Dias and his involvement with a private hospital.

I have been made aware that the Solicitor to the Chief Constable of Cleveland Police has completed the review of my reply provided in relation to your request and that you have been provided with a response as to the outcome of that review.

This E mail is to notify you that this request and review has now been closed.

If you are not satisfied with our response you have the right to refer this to the Information Commissioner who will consider your complaint. You can contact the Commissioner at:

Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire,
SK9 5AF

or alternatively by e-mail at [email address]

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Jim Conlin
FOI Decision Maker
Public Information Unit
Tel 01642 306825

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Conlin,

Enquiry Ref : 2008/1247

Thank you for your reply dated 30th July 2008.

I am disappointed with the Cleveland Police reply, although given
the chequered past of this Police Force where a total of 286
complaints were investigated in a corruption probe against
Cleveland Police and 39 officers were under suspicion (details
taken from press reports), this comes as no surprise.

I had thought that with the solicitor for the Chief Constables
Office becoming involved that some common sense and professionalism
would have prevailed, however, this appears not to be. Obviously
the ‘Old Guard’ continue to reign at Middlesbrough police.

I received a letter from Jacksons Solicitors of Yarm (they do NOT
act on my behalf), dated 26th June 2008 and have copied the text
below:

With regards to Mr Dias, we are informed that his business
operations are sanctioned under Regulation 7 of the Police
Regulations Act 2003 and have been approved by the Acting Deputy
Chief Constable on 7th January 2008.

As Jacksons have this information and have passed it on to me, then
this is surely already within the public domain. Therefore, the
Data Protection Act does not apply to the information I have
requested.

With regard to the above paragraph, I question the review that was
carried out by the solicitor to the Chief Constables Office.

I do not agree this request is closed and ask you to reopen it. I
once again request the information regarding PC 1973 Dias.

Yours sincerely

Mr R Bannister

Dear Mr Bannister,

With regards to your email sent to PC Conlin dated 1 August 2008 I
acknowledge receipt of your message, however, PC Conlin is currently on
leave.

In his absence, and as previously stated, I must remind you that as far as
Cleveland Police is concerned your request was reviewed and should you
wish to appeal against that `review' decision it is open to you to contact
the Information Commissioner for him to consider any dispute.

Once again I have included the Information Commissioner's contact details.

Wycliffe House,
Water Lane,
Wilmslow,
Cheshire,
SK9 5AF

or alternatively by e-mail at [1][email address]

Yours sincerely

Michael Reddy

Freedom of Information Unit

Cleveland Police.

show quoted sections