Any action against DCC Winton Keenen for failing to act concerning the allegations (the 12 month delay) against ACC Greg Vant ...

Martin McGartland made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Northumbria Police

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Northumbria Police.

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

11 April 2017

Dear Northumbria Police (NP),

I would like you to supply me with original copies of the following information;

1. A Copy of the IPCCs final independent Investigation report into former ACC Greg Vant.

2. Copies of all recorded information that is held by NP (includings its press office) relating to all, any media enquiries, emails, questions, requests and freedom of Information requests that have been made to NP (both verbal and in writing) concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's Independent Investigation, the IPCCs final investigation report into former Northumbria Police ACC Greg Vant.

I would also like;

3 Copies of all original forms, documents of all, any media enquiries, questions, emails, requests, FOIs as well as all of NPs replies regards this request.

I would like this information to cover the period between Janaury 2017 and up until the date this request is answered.

4. Please also confirm what action, if any, has been taken (including any warnings, advice given) by the IPCC, NP against DCC Winton Keenen for failing to act concerning the allegations that were made, emailed to him against ACC Greg Vant 12 months earlier?

I do not require any personal data (including names) of any members of the press.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Thank you for your email received today in which you make a request for
information that Northumbria Police may hold in accordance with the
Freedom Of Information Act 2000

We are in the process of dealing with your request and a response should
be provided to you by  15/05/17 which is in accordance with the
legislation.

Yours sincerely

Jan Mcewan
Information Management Unit

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

Northumbria Police

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your e mail dated 11th  April  2017 in which you made a
request for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria
Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held at the time of a request, by a Public Authority
(including the Police), subject to certain limitations and exemptions.
 
You asked:
1.  A Copy of the IPCCs final independent Investigation report  into
former ACC Greg Vant.

2.  Copies of all recorded information that is held by NP  (includings its
press office) relating to all, any media enquiries,  emails, questions,
requests and freedom of Information requests that have been made to NP
 (both verbal and in writing) concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's
Independent Investigation, the IPCCs final investigation report into
former Northumbria Police  ACC Greg Vant.

3    Copies of all original forms, documents of all, any media enquiries,
questions, emails, requests, FOIs as well as all of NPs replies regards
this request.

I would like this information to cover the period between Janaury 2017 and
up until the date this request is answered.

4.   Please also confirm what action, if any, has been taken (including
any warnings, advice given) by the IPCC, NP against DCC Winton Keenen for
failing to act concerning the allegations that were made, emailed to him
against ACC Greg Vant 12 months earlier?

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

Both points 2 and 3 of your request ask us to look for 'all original
forms' and  'all recorded information' therefore our response below
relects that.  
To provide a definitive response to your request would require all staff
and police officers  to search, retrieve, examine and consider the content
of all email accounts, and any other locations where correspondence
including emails, faxes and letters might be held and to ascertain whether
any email sent from those accounts, or correspondence held in those
locations touches upon the information sought.  We have approximately
4,600 officers and staff with personal mailboxes and hundreds of
departmental mailboxes that would require reviewing to establish if
anything is held therein that relates to your request. We have estimated
to do so would far exceed the permitted time constraints for e mails
alone.  Further time would then be needed to search through other routes
such correspondence may have taken. As we have estimated that to extract
this information would take over the permitted 18 hours,  Section 12(1) of
the Freedom of Information Act would apply.  This section does not oblige
a public authority to comply with a request for information if the
authority estimated that the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the appropriate limit of 18 hours, equating to £450.00

You should consider this to be a refusal notice under Section 17 of the
Act for that part of your request.

When applying Section 12 exemption our duty to assist under Section 16 of
the Act would normally entail that we contact you to determine whether it
is possible to refine the scope of your request to bring it within the
cost limits.  However, from the information we have outlined above I  am
unable to suggest a refinement that would bring the request within the
cost threshold to provide a definitive response.
Addionally you should note that had Section 12 not been fully applicable,
other exemtptions would have been considered and applied where relevant.
Particularly in this case the subject of complaints would have been likely
to attract the exemption outlined in Section 14 of the Act.

Due to the different methods of recording information across 43 forces, a
specific response from one constabulary should not be seen as an
indication of what information could be supplied (within cost) by another.
 Systems used for recording these figures are not generic, nor are the
procedures used locally in capturing the data.  For this reason responses
between forces may differ, and should not be used for comparative
purposes.

The information we have supplied to you is likely to contain intellectual
property rights of Northumbria Police.  Your use of the information must
be strictly in accordance with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
(as amended) or such other applicable legislation.  In particular, you
must not re-use this information for any commercial purpose.

You may be interested to know that Northumbria Police routinely publish
information via the Disclosure Log.  The aim of the Disclosure Log is to
promote openness and transparency by voluntarily placing information into
the public arena.

The Disclosure Log contains copies of some of the information that has
been disclosed by Northumbria Police in response to requests made under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Whilst it is not possible to publish all responses we will endeavour to
publish those where we feel that the information disclosed is in the wider
public interest.

The Disclosure Log will be updated once responses have been sent to the
requester.
I have provided the relevant link below.

[1]http://www.northumbria.police.uk/freedom...

How to complain

If you are unhappy with our decision or do not consider that we have
handled your request properly and we are unable to resolve this issue
informally, you are entitled to make a formal complaint to us under our
complaints procedure, attached below

[2]http://www.northumbria.police.uk/freedom...

If you are still unhappy after we have investigated your complaint and
reported to you the outcome, you may complain directly to the Information
Commissioner’s Office and request that they investigate to ascertain
whether we have dealt with your request in accordance with the Act.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor
Direct Dial:  0191 2956941
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/freedom...
2. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/freedom...

Martin McGartland

22 June 2017

Dear Northumbria Police,

I will be making a complaint to the ICO concerning the delay in answering this request and because the way it has been dealt with once I receive your reply to this internal review. This request should have been answered on or before 15 May 2017. It was not answered until today (22 June 2017).

You have applied exemption Section 12(1) and you have claimed that; "To provide a definitive response to your request would require all staff and police officers to search, retrieve, examine and consider the content of all email accounts, and any other locations where correspondence including emails, faxes and letters might be held and to ascertain whether any email sent from those accounts, or correspondence held in those locations touches upon the information sought. We have approximately 4,600 officers and staff with personal mailboxes and hundreds of departmental mailboxes that would require reviewing to establish if anything is held therein that relates to your request. We have estimated to do so would far exceed the permitted time constraints for e mails alone. Further time would then be needed to search through other routes such correspondence may have taken. As we have estimated that to extract this information would take over the permitted 18 hours, Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act would apply. This section does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimated that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit of 18 hours, equating to £450.00 Both points 2 and 3 of your request ask us to look for 'all original forms' and 'all recorded information' therefore our response below relects that."

If, as NP claim, Section 12(1) was engaged (which I say it is not) why has it taken so long for NP to answer this request? They could have answered the request within 20 day limit if it was believed to be exempt under section 12 (1).

The only departments that would be required to check regarding this request is PSD and the Press Office, those who deal with the complaints (in this case relating to former ACC Vant and this request). The same is the case when it concerns part 2 of my request; "Copies of all recorded information that is held by NP (including its press office) relating to all, any media enquiries, emails, questions, requests and freedom of information requests that have been made to NP (both verbal and in writing) concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's Independent Investigation, the IPCCs final investigation report into former Northumbria Police ACC Greg Vant." The press office, as I understand it, will keep records, completed forms of all contact from the press and NP's replies. This part of the request related ONLY to all contact between press and NP concerning the complaint, the IPCC Independent investigation against Mr Vant.

There would not have been any reason for you to check "approximately 4,600 officers and staff with personal mailboxes ..." or every department within NP to answer this request. The request can easily be answered well within the £450 limit. I say that Section 12(1) has been used (FOIA being abused) to protect DCC Winton Keenen, part 4 of my request; " Please also confirm what action, if any, has been taken (including any warnings, advice given) by the IPCC, NP against DCC Winton Keenen for failing to act concerning the allegations that were made, emailed to him against ACC Greg Vant 12 months earlier?" And also former ACC Vant and so that NP can continue to cover up and conceal the IPCC Independent Investigation report into former ACC Vant. It is in the public interest to disclose the IPCC's independent investigation report and it should be released without delay.

This internal review is being made on the above grounds. Also, Section 12(1) would not apply to this request as it could be answered by simply going to, as should have happened, to PSD and the Press Office where the information is held regarding the request, where the information requested is also freely available.

You state in your reply that; "When applying Section 12 exemption our duty to assist under Section 16 of
the Act would normally entail that we contact you to determine whether it is possible to refine the scope of your request to bring it within the cost limits. However, from the information we have outlined above I am
unable to suggest a refinement that would bring the request within the cost threshold to provide a definitive response. " You are correct, it is your duty to assist under Section 16 of the Act and NP have ignored same and have failed to do so. The request can be refined without very little effort.

As a result of the above and also my telephone conversation with Mr Cleugh this afternoon my request can be refined to the following extent;

1. A Copy of the IPCC's final independent Investigation report into former ACC Greg Vant.

2. Copies of all recorded information that is held by NP press office relating to all, any media enquiries, emails, questions (both verbal and in writing) by the press concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's Independent Investigation, the IPCC's final investigation report into former Northumbria Police ACC Greg Vant.

3. Copies of all original forms, documents of all, any media enquiries, questions, emails as well as all of NP's replies regarding part 2 above.

4. Full details of any action, if any, taken (including any warnings, advice given) against DCC Winton Keenen relating to his failing to act concerning allegations made, emailed to him against former ACC Greg Vant 12 months earlier relating from the IPCC's Independent Investigation?

This would bring this FOI request within the 18 hours Section 12 overcosts limit. It is also noted that NP have not supplied any details at all concerning an estimate, the costs to deal with my original request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Good morning,

Your request for an internal review is noted.  We will respond as soon as
we are able, once the review is complete.

Regards,

Shirley

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #400614 email]> on 22/06/2017 16:17

To:        FOI requests at Northumbria Police
<[Northumbria Police request email]>
cc:        
Subject:        Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Any
action against DCC Winton Keenen for failing to act concerning the
allegations (the 12 month delay) against ACC Greg Vant ...

Martin McGartland

22 June 2017

Dear Northumbria Police,

I will be making a complaint to the ICO concerning the delay in answering
this request and because the way it has been dealt with once  I receive
your reply to this internal review.  This request should have been
answered on or before 15 May 2017.  It was not answered until today (22
June 2017).

You have applied exemption Section 12(1) and you have claimed that; "To
provide a definitive response to your request would require all staff and
police officers  to search, retrieve, examine and consider the content of
all email accounts, and any other locations where correspondence including
emails, faxes and letters might be held and to ascertain whether any email
sent from those accounts, or correspondence held in those locations
touches upon the information sought.  We have approximately 4,600 officers
and staff with personal mailboxes and hundreds of departmental mailboxes
that would require reviewing to establish if anything is held therein that
relates to your request. We have estimated to do so would far exceed the
permitted time constraints for e mails alone.  Further time would then be
needed to search through other routes such correspondence may have taken.
As we have estimated that to extract this information would take over the
permitted 18 hours,  Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act would
apply.  This section does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimated that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit of 18 hours,
equating to £450.00 Both points 2 and 3 of your request ask us to look for
'all original forms' and  'all recorded information' therefore our
response below relects that."  

If, as NP claim, Section 12(1) was engaged (which I say it is not) why has
it taken so long for NP to answer this request?  They could have answered
the request within 20 day limit if it was believed to be exempt under
section 12 (1).

The only departments that would be required to check regarding this
request is PSD and the Press Office, those who deal with the complaints
(in this case relating to former ACC Vant and this request).  The same is
the case when it concerns part 2 of my request;  "Copies of all recorded
information that is held by NP  (including its press office) relating to
all, any media enquiries,  emails, questions, requests and freedom of
information requests that have been made to NP  (both verbal and in
writing) concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's Independent Investigation, the
IPCCs final investigation report into former Northumbria Police  ACC Greg
Vant."   The press office, as I understand it, will keep records,
completed forms of all contact from the press and NP's replies.  This part
of the request related ONLY to all contact between press and NP concerning
the complaint, the IPCC Independent investigation  against Mr Vant.

There would not have been any reason for you to check "approximately 4,600
officers and staff with personal mailboxes ..." or every department within
NP to answer this request.  The request can easily be answered well within
the £450 limit.  I say that Section 12(1) has been used (FOIA being
abused) to protect DCC Winton Keenen, part 4 of my request;  " Please also
confirm what action, if any, has been taken (including any warnings,
advice given) by the IPCC, NP against DCC Winton Keenen for failing to act
concerning the allegations that were made, emailed to him against ACC Greg
Vant 12 months earlier?"  And also former ACC Vant and so that NP can
continue to cover up and conceal the IPCC Independent Investigation report
into former ACC Vant.  It is in the public interest to disclose the IPCC's
independent investigation report and it should be released without delay.
 

This internal review is being made on the above grounds.  Also, Section
12(1) would not apply to this request as it could be answered by simply
going to, as should have happened, to PSD and the Press Office where the
information is held regarding the request, where the information requested
is also freely available.  

You state in your reply that; "When applying Section 12 exemption our duty
to assist under Section 16 of
the Act would normally entail that we contact you to determine whether it
is possible to refine the scope of your request to bring it within the
cost limits.  However, from the information we have outlined above I  am
unable to suggest a refinement that would bring the request within the
cost threshold to provide a definitive response. "   You are correct, it
is your duty to assist under Section 16  of the Act and NP have ignored
same and have failed to do so.  The request can be refined without very
little effort.

As a result of the above and also my telephone conversation with Mr Cleugh
this afternoon my request can be refined to the following extent;

1.  A Copy of the IPCC's final independent Investigation report  into
former ACC Greg Vant.

2.  Copies of all recorded information that is held by NP press office
relating to all, any media enquiries,  emails, questions (both verbal and
in writing)  by the press concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's Independent
Investigation, the IPCC's final investigation report into former
Northumbria Police  ACC Greg Vant.

3.   Copies of all original forms, documents of all, any media enquiries,
questions, emails as well as all of NP's replies regarding part 2 above.

4.  Full details of any action, if any, taken (including any warnings,
advice given) against DCC Winton Keenen relating to his failing to act
concerning allegations made, emailed to him against former ACC Greg Vant
12 months earlier relating from the IPCC's Independent Investigation?

This would bring this FOI request within the 18 hours Section 12 overcosts
limit.  It is also noted that NP have not supplied any details at all
concerning an estimate, the costs to deal with my original request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Jan Mcewan 4218, Northumbria Police

 

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

 

Thank you for your correspondence dated  22nd June   2017 in which you
requested a review of the response to your request for access to certain
information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

 

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police)
subject to certain limitations and exemptions

 

You asked for:

 

1.  A Copy of the IPCCs final independent Investigation report  into
former ACC Greg Vant.

 

2.  Copies of all recorded information that is held by NP  (includings its
press office) relating to all, any media enquiries,  emails, questions,
requests and freedom of Information requests that have been made to NP 
(both verbal and in writing) concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's
Independent Investigation, the IPCCs final investigation report into
former Northumbria Police  ACC Greg Vant.

 

3    Copies of all original forms, documents of all, any media enquiries,
questions, emails, requests, FOIs as well as all of NPs replies regards
this request.

 

I would like this information to cover the period between Janaury 2017 and
up until the date this request is answered.

 

4.   Please also confirm what action, if any, has been taken (including
any warnings, advice given) by the IPCC, NP against DCC Winton Keenen for
failing to act concerning the allegations that were made, emailed to him
against ACC Greg Vant 12 months earlier?

 

In response we advised:

 

Thank you for your e mail dated 11th  April  2017 in which you made a
request for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria
Police.

 

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held at the time of a request, by a Public Authority
(including the Police), subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

 

You asked:

 

1.  A Copy of the IPCCs final independent Investigation report  into
former ACC Greg Vant.

2.  Copies of all recorded information that is held by NP  (includings its
press office) relating to all, any media enquiries,  emails, questions,
requests and freedom of Information requests that have been made to NP 
(both verbal and in writing) concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's
Independent Investigation, the IPCCs final investigation report into
former Northumbria Police  ACC Greg Vant.

3    Copies of all original forms, documents of all, any media enquiries,
questions, emails, requests, FOIs as well as all of NPs replies regards
this request.

 

I would like this information to cover the period between Janaury 2017 and
up until the date this request is answered.

 

4.   Please also confirm what action, if any, has been taken (including
any warnings, advice given) by the IPCC, NP against DCC Winton Keenen for
failing to act concerning the allegations that were made, emailed to him
against ACC Greg Vant 12 months earlier?

 

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

 

Both points 2 and 3 of your request ask us to look for 'all original
forms' and  'all recorded information' therefore our response below
relects that. 

To provide a definitive response to your request would require all staff
and police officers  to search, retrieve, examine and consider the content
of all email accounts, and any other locations where correspondence
including emails, faxes and letters might be held and to ascertain whether
any email sent from those accounts, or correspondence held in those
locations touches upon the information sought.  We have approximately
4,600 officers and staff with personal mailboxes and hundreds of
departmental mailboxes that would require reviewing to establish if
anything is held therein that relates to your request. We have estimated
to do so would far exceed the permitted time constraints for e mails
alone.  Further time would then be needed to search through other routes
such correspondence may have taken. As we have estimated that to extract
this information would take over the permitted 18 hours,  Section 12(1) of
the Freedom of Information Act would apply.  This section does not oblige
a public authority to comply with a request for information if the
authority estimated that the cost of complying with the request would
exceed the appropriate limit of 18 hours, equating to £450.00

 

You should consider this to be a refusal notice under Section 17 of the
Act for that part of your request.

 

When applying Section 12 exemption our duty to assist under Section 16 of
the Act would normally entail that we contact you to determine whether it
is possible to refine the scope of your request to bring it within the
cost limits.  However, from the information we have outlined above I  am
unable to suggest a refinement that would bring the request within the
cost threshold to provide a definitive response.

Additionally you should note that had Section 12 not been fully
applicable, other exemtptions would have been considered and applied where
relevant. Particularly in this case the subject of complaints would have
been likely to attract the exemption outlined in Section 14 of the Act.

 

Your request for Internal review stated:

 

I will be making a complaint to the ICO concerning the delay in answering
this request and because the way it has been dealt with once  I receive
your reply to this internal review.  This request should have been
answered on or before 15 May 2017.  It was not answered until today (22
June 2017).

 

You have applied exemption Section 12(1) and you have claimed that; "To
provide a definitive response to your request would require all staff and
police officers  to search, retrieve, examine and consider the content of
all email accounts, and any other locations where correspondence including
emails, faxes and letters might be held and to ascertain whether any email
sent from those accounts, or correspondence held in those locations
touches upon the information sought.  We have approximately 4,600 officers
and staff with personal mailboxes and hundreds of departmental mailboxes
that would require reviewing to establish if anything is held therein that
relates to your request. We have estimated to do so would far exceed the
permitted time constraints for e mails alone.  Further time would then be
needed to search through other routes such correspondence may have taken.
As we have estimated that to extract this information would take over the
permitted 18 hours,  Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act would
apply.  This section does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimated that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit of 18 hours,
equating to £450.00 Both points 2 and 3 of your request ask us to look for
'all original forms' and  'all recorded information' therefore our
response below relects that." 

 

If, as NP claim, Section 12(1) was engaged (which I say it is not) why has
it taken so long for NP to answer this request?  They could have answered
the request within 20 day limit if it was believed to be exempt under
section 12 (1).

 

The only departments that would be required to check regarding this
request is PSD and the Press Office, those who deal with the complaints
(in this case relating to former ACC Vant and this request).  The same is
the case when it concerns part 2 of my request;  "Copies of all recorded
information that is held by NP  (including its press office) relating to
all, any media enquiries,  emails, questions, requests and freedom of
information requests that have been made to NP  (both verbal and in
writing) concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's Independent Investigation, the
IPCCs final investigation report into former Northumbria Police  ACC Greg
Vant."   The press office, as I understand it, will keep records,
completed forms of all contact from the press and NP's replies.  This part
of the request related ONLY to all contact between press and NP concerning
the complaint, the IPCC Independent investigation  against Mr Vant.

 

There would not have been any reason for you to check "approximately 4,600
officers and staff with personal mailboxes ..." or every department within
NP to answer this request.  The request can easily be answered well within
the £450 limit.  I say that Section 12(1) has been used (FOIA being
abused) to protect DCC Winton Keenen, part 4 of my request;  " Please also
confirm what action, if any, has been taken (including any warnings,
advice given) by the IPCC, NP against DCC Winton Keenen for failing to act
concerning the allegations that were made, emailed to him against ACC Greg
Vant 12 months earlier?"  And also former ACC Vant and so that NP can
continue to cover up and conceal the IPCC Independent Investigation report
into former ACC Vant.  It is in the public interest to disclose the IPCC's
independent investigation report and it should be released without delay. 

 

This internal review is being made on the above grounds.  Also, Section
12(1) would not apply to this request as it could be answered by simply
going to, as should have happened, to PSD and the Press Office where the
information is held regarding the request, where the information requested
is also freely available. 

 

You state in your reply that; "When applying Section 12 exemption our duty
to assist under Section 16 of the Act would normally entail that we
contact you to determine whether it is possible to refine the scope of
your request to bring it within the cost limits.  However, from the
information we have outlined above I  am unable to suggest a refinement
that would bring the request within the cost threshold to provide a
definitive response. "   You are correct, it is your duty to assist under
Section 16  of the Act and NP have ignored same and have failed to do so. 
The request can be refined without very little effort.

 

As a result of the above and also my telephone conversation with Mr Cleugh
this afternoon my request can be refined to the following extent;

 

1.  A Copy of the IPCC's final independent Investigation report  into
former ACC Greg Vant.

 

2.  Copies of all recorded information that is held by NP press office
relating to all, any media enquiries,  emails, questions (both verbal and
in writing)  by the press concerning complaint/s, the IPCC's Independent
Investigation, the IPCC's final investigation report into former
Northumbria Police  ACC Greg Vant.

 

3.   Copies of all original forms, documents of all, any media enquiries,
questions, emails as well as all of NP's replies regarding part 2 above.

 

4.  Full details of any action, if any, taken (including any warnings,
advice given) against DCC Winton Keenen relating to his failing to act
concerning allegations made, emailed to him against former ACC Greg Vant
12 months earlier relating from the IPCC's Independent Investigation?

 

This would bring this FOI request within the 18 hours Section 12 over
costs limit.  It is also noted that NP have not supplied any details at
all concerning an estimate, the costs to deal with my original request.

 

In response :

 

This review has taken the opportunity to revisit the original request sent
in and its associated response.

 

It is accepted that the application of the Section 12 exemption should be
confirmed within the 20 days allowed by the Act. Accordingly your point on
this procedural matter is accepted.

 

Regarding the request itself. Upon review, it is clear that your request
is connected to other requests submitted by you that have fairly been
classed as vexatious in nature. Accordingly this request falls into this
category.

 

In this case, consideration has been given to the recent Decision Notice
dated the 25th April 2017 issued regarding your requests and a previous
decision notice from 3rd July 2012, again relating to you and regarding a
similar request related to the disclosure of complaint data regarding a
Senior Officer within Northumbria Police. That decision notice stated that
Northumbria Police was entitled to apply Section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act
and that this exemption was indeed engaged. 

 

Having reviewed other requests submitted by you, I believe that this
request is linked to the other numerous requests and therefore can fairly
be classed as vexatious in its nature.

 

You have been in touch with Northumbria Police for many years regarding
dissatisfaction with the on-going investigation into the incident when you
were shot in 1999.

 

We did initially consult the Decision Notice issued in 2012 (ICO reference
FS50435641) which was about another senior Officer involved in the same
investigation (Superintendent Chris Thomson). That Decision Notice
determined that information about that Senior Officer was classed as
personal data and disclosure could fairly be resisted.

 

That named Officer was the target of a campaign and was the subject of
eight separate FOI from those classed as working in concert. You have used
these requests along with other websites to further a campaign against
this other named Officer. This request is indicative of of a similar
campaign against the Force by targetting its Officers and staff.

 

It is apparent that you target Senior Officers (past or present) within
Northumbria Police.

 

You have submitted a large volume of requests and many of these requests
are overlapping and often mix accusations and have become manifestly
unreasonable and burdensome, in terms of the resources required to deal
with them.

 

The requests submitted regarding Officers form a small part of a large
volume of requests submitted by you. Many requests mix accusations and are
placed into a public arena in an effort to further grievances against
Northumbria Police.

 

It is clear that you have issues with Northumbria Police and its Officers
and you use public facing arenas to air these grievances. A simple
internet search brings back multiple entries specifically about the
Officers of Northumbria Police and in my view it is clear from the type
and nature of the data available in such searches that you are using the
FOIA arena to further this campaign against Northumbria Police  Your
recent Decision Notice from the 25th April 2017 stated, “there is no wider
value or purpose beyond the complainant’s public pursuit of his grievance
against Northumbria Police” and my view is that this request is yet
another example where he exploits the FOIA process to embarrass and harass
Senior Officers within  Northumbria Police in an attempt to  further his
own grievance.

It is clear that this request and other requests have been made as a
direct result of concerns about the handling of the investigation.
Responses that have been supplied have almost inevitably been followed up
by further requests for information, requests for clarification and
requests for internal reviews.

 

I believe that you are attempting to use the What Do They Know arena in an
effort to somehow embarrass and harass Northumbria Police.  I draw your
attention to the recent Decision Notice and set out in the Reason for
Decision that the Commissioner stated that the continued approaches from
Mr McGartland were “unreasonable and that the public comments made by the
complainant amounted to harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff”. 
It is my belief that you are again, via this request and the What Do They
Know platform, pursuing his campaign against Northumbria Police and that
your intention is to use the data to unfairly discredit the Force.

 

As a result of the above, your request can be fairly be classed as
vexatious.

 

In conclusion, it is the decision of this review that the original
response was not the most appropriate way to deal with your request as
Section 14 of the Act is the exemption most applicable to this request.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review then it remains
open to you to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at the
following address:

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Hayley Morrison

Information Management Unit Manager

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Why is Winton Keenen, IPCC covering up and suppressing their "independent" Investigation report into this case? Martin McGartland says; "Because Winton Keenen, IPCC have Whitewashed it, have not carried out a proper investigation.... that's way. They have much to hide. Winton Keenen FAILED to report this case for over 12 months, after I made him aware of it. He, Winton Keenen, olny took action after I contacted himeagain (and the IPCC). The IPCC are the police, the police as the IPCC). The following is the text of Sunday Times story - published 21 January 2018 -

Burglary arrest of Police chief's singer son 'hushed up'

A Northumbria officer paid compensation to a victim and colleagues deleted records of the £30,000 crime

Tom Harper and Robin Henry, Sunday Times January 21, 2018

A senior police officer's son was arrested on suspicion of burglary - but he was not charged, his father compensated the victim and details of the incident were deleted from the force's database.

Matthew Vant was questioned under caution on suspicion of burglary and criminal damage when he was a 19 year-year old university student after a party at his flat spilt over into a shop downstairs.

Detectives who went to the shop, a Cartridge World in Sunderland, found ink all over the walls, while a vintage record collection and several computers were missing. The investigating officer estimated the damage to be £30,000.

Vant is the lead singer of a punk rock band, also called Vant, who have performed at Glastonbury festival and on BBC Radio 1. His father, Greg, is a former assistant chief constable of Northumbria police.

Following the arrest of his son in November 2009, the force authorised the matter to be settled through the community resolution scheme with the shop owner receiving an apology and £1,000 from Greg Vant, who was still serving at the time. Such settlements do not lead to a criminal record.

When the incident was brought to the attention of senior officers, details of the crime were deleted from internal police databases. The decision is understood to have been an attempt to prevent the incident being leaked to the media.

Information about Vant's arrest was printed off before deletion and secretly retained in the force's safe.

A whistleblower who leaked details of the burglary incident to The Sunday Times said he thought the action taken by senior officers was completely inappropriate. "it seems it is one rule for the public and another for friends of Northumbria Police," said the source.

In 2016, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) received a complaint about the incident. The police watchdog, which changed its name this month to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, launched an independent investigation, which concluded that Greg Vant had no case to answer. He denies any involvement in the investigation into his son and said the decision to delete the logs was taken by a colleague.

He said his son had been "stupid" but was not guilty of any criminal offence. Northumbria Poilice said the IPCC "found no evidence of misconduct".

(** The above story is the text as it appears in the Sunday Times newspaper on 21 January 2018).

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Northumbria Police (NP) malicious / false ‘vexatious’ claims (their Lies) are nothing new. NP have been using and abusing same by to cover up their gross misconduct – and misfeasance in public office by their Bent officers who are (and were) involved in the Martin McGartland's cases. They having been lying about ‘vexatious’ for more than 7 years, see ICO 2011 decision notice in which they found that request was NOT ‘vexatious’,
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

NP, Winton Keenen will say (and do) anything to cover up their corruption in the Martin McGartland cases.

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

25 Years of Serious CORRUPTION by Northumbria Police - from the very Top down - in the Martin McGartland cases ....
Read more:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/dufferpad/v...

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/search?content_ty...

Google: https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=h...

.............................................