Costs to Northumbria Police, taxpayer relating to Martin McGartland 1999 attempted murder case

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) 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 (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

1. How many police officers have been directly involved in the investigation in this case.

2. What is the total cost of the investigation to date.

3. How many firearms officers were directly involved in protecting me.

4. What was the total cost of providing firearms officers in this case.

5. How many times have Northumbria Police officers, other person(s) acting on their behalf) travelled to Northern Ireland in relation to this case.

6. Please identify all costs in relation to all visits to Northern Ireland including total costs to date.

7. Please identify all/any costs paid in legal fees in relation to the case. Please also supply breakdown of such costs.

8. Please identify all costs paid in relation to all/any other professional fees in this case. Please supply breakdown.

9. Have any Northumbria Police officer travelled outside of the United Kingdom in relation to this case, if so please give full details including date(s), number of officer(s), rank(s) of officers.

10. If so, what was the total cost(s), including full breakdown relating to number 9 above.

11. Please give full details of all/any payment(s) made by Northumbria Police, it's insurers or any other third party organisations, acting on their behalf, to any person(s) by way of compensation, damages, payment(s) for damage and or any other associated costs connected to the case.

12. Please supply full details of names and rank of all senior officers, above Chief Superintendent rank, who have been involved in this case during past 10 years. Please detail their involvement in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

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.

We are in the process of dealing with your request and expect to revert to
you shortly. A response should be provided by 17 January 2011.

Please note that this request will be aggregated with previous requests
which refer to the same subject area that we have received within the last
60 working days, for costing/time purposes. In doing so we have followed
guidance from the Information Commissioners Office. I have attached some
information which you may find useful with regards to requests being
aggregated.

Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

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

References

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

Northumbria Police

2 Atodiad

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

Thank you for your email dated 14 December 2010 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 by a Public Authority (including the Police),
subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

You asked:

1. How many police officers have been directly involved in the
investigation in this case.

2. What is the total cost of the investigation to date.

3. How many firearms officers were directly involved in protecting me.

4. What was the total cost of providing firearms officers in this case.

5. How many times have Northumbria Police officers, other person(s) acting
on their behalf) travelled to Northern Ireland in relation to this case.

6. Please identify all costs in relation to all visits to Northern Ireland
including total costs to date.

7. Please identify all/any costs paid in legal fees in relation to the
case. Please also supply breakdown of such costs.

8. Please identify all costs paid in relation to all/any other professional
fees in this case. Please supply breakdown.

9. Have any Northumbria Police officer travelled outside of the United
Kingdom in relation to this case, if so please give full details
including date(s), number of officer(s), rank(s) of officers.

10. If so, what was the total cost(s), including full breakdown relating
to number 9 above.

11. Please give full details of all/any payment(s) made by Northumbria
Police, its insurers or any other third party organisations, acting on
their behalf, to any person(s) by way of compensation, damages,
payment(s) for damage and or any other associated costs connected to the
case.

12. Please supply full details of names and rank of all senior officers,
above Chief Superintendent rank, who have been involved in this case
during past 10 years. Please detail their involvement in this case.

In response:

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

As advised earlier this request would be aggregated with previous requests
which refer to the same subject area that we have received within the last
60 working days, for costing/time purposes.

This request is on the same subject as requests received from you
previously. I must remind you that you were advised on the 13 November 2009
that we were not obliged to, nor did we intend to take any steps in
relation to any further requests that are deemed to fall into the remit of
vexatious. I have attached a copy of that response for reference purposes.
The comments made in that response remain valid at this point.

(See attached file: Vexatious notice.pdf)

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.

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 which is attached.

(See attached file: FOI Complaint Rights.doc)

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: 01661 868347

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Re: Vexatious

The Information Commissioner’s office states that.
Is the request vexatious?

The term “vexatious” is intended to have its ordinary meaning and there is no link with legal definitions from other contexts (eg vexatious litigants).
Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a flexible balancing exercise, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
There is no rigid test or definition, and it will often be easy to recognise. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause distress, disruption or irritation, without any proper or
justified cause.

To help you identify a vexatious request, we recommend that you consider the following questions, taking into account the context and history of the request:

• Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
• Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
• Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
• Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
• Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

To judge a request vexatious, you should usually be able to make relatively strong arguments under more than one of these headings.

Link here;
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

NP will find it difficult to make ‘strong arguments’ under any of the above, However, I am requesting that they answer following;.

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered when dealing with this request.

3. Please give full details of when NP have deal with this request and or these questions in the past. Please also supply me with the evidence to back up such claims.

I also not that; "When assessing vexatiousness the Commissioner adopts the view of the Information Tribunal (the “Tribunal”)
decision in Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner’s Office
[EA/2006/0070] (paragraph 32); that it must be given its ordinary meaning so would be likely to cause distress or irritation. The enquiry is based on objective standards. This has been reaffirmed
by the Tribunal in Gowers v Information Tribunal and London Camden Borough Council [EA/2007/0114] (paragraph 27). The Commissioner has developed a more detailed test in accordance with his guidance but
it is important to understand that it has developed from these general principles and they guide him in applying his test."

This has got nothing at all to do with my request being
‘vexatious’. Moreover, NP have not shown when I asked these questions in the past nor how it can be deemed as a vexatious request. NP have claimed that a request I had made in the past was vexatious. However, I did not question this at that time nor did I take the matter any further. However, given
what I now know about FOIA it was/is a flawed decision. I say it is also unlawful. Furthermore, I have never asked NP for this information in the past.

Such an exemption should be used fairly and NP have not shown how this request can be deemed by them as ‘vexatious’.

I note that the term 'vexatious' is not clearly defined in the Act, however, guidance on the Scottish Information Commissioner's website states:
'This term could be used to describe requests that are clearly intended to disrupt the authority's work, rather than genuine requests for information. It might also apply if you have already made the same request and had it rejected on appeal to the Commissioner, or if you have unreasonably failed to give the
authority enough detail to identify the information you want. However, a public authority cannot decide that your request is vexatious simply because it finds you or your request irritating or a nuisance’

What NP are saying is that I can not make any type of a FOIA request for any sort of information nor ask questions concerning my unsolved 1999 attempted murder case.

I look forward to your reply

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I would also refer you to the following;

Section 77 of the FOIA Offence of altering etc. records with intent to prevent disclosure.

(1) Where—

(a) a request for information has been made to a public authority, and

(b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the M1Data Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled (subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information in accordance with that section, any person to whom this subsection applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that authority of all, or any part, of the information to the communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the direction of, the public authority.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be instituted—

(a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

Link; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Northumbria Police have deliberately withheld this and other information from me. Section 77 of the Act as above, states that a criminal offence is committed if an authority alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any information with the intention of preventing the applicant from receiving any of the information he is entitled to receive. I will also be asking the Commissioner to investigate this matter.

I believe that Northumbria Police have acted unlawfully when dealing with this request and that they have breached my Human Rights in that I have been subjected to a long and very damaging campaign of harassment by senior officers and that I have been, and continue to be subjected to a continued harassment, discrimination, degrading treatment and punishment by them, Northumbria Police. I would remind you that the Northumbria Police Chief Constable has already had to pay me compensation in 2000 as follows;

(a) £20,000 for defamation after Northumbria Police deliberately lied about me, my shooting.

(b) £ 5,000 relating to harassment by Northumbria Police against me.

I will now be seeking further legal advice on this latest issue and am placing on the record that I am reserving all of my legal rights.

I must ask Northumbria Police to stop breaching the FOI Act and to withdraw their very damaging and wild claims and statements against me. The information which I have requested must now be released without furher delay.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

We acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of the
response you received on 17 January 2010 in relation to the above
mentioned Freedom Of Information request.

We aim to provide a response to you within 20 working days of receipt of
your request.
Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

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

References

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

Northumbria Police

We acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of the
response you received on 17 January 2010 in relation to the above
mentioned Freedom Of Information request.

We aim to provide a response to you within 20 working days of receipt of
your request.
Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

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

References

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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have not requested an internal review. I wrote to NP, as above, on the 14th January 2011 requesting further information and to ask them to answer the following questions;

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered when dealing with this request.

3. Please give details of when NP have dealt with this request and or these questions in the past. Please supply me with the evidence concerning same.

Northumbria Police have so far ignored those questions and also my email. I have not as yet had a reply to my 14th January 2011 email as follows;

Dear Northumbria Police,

Re: Vexatious

The Information Commissioner’s office states that. Is the request vexatious?

The term “vexatious” is intended to have its ordinary meaning and there is no link with legal definitions from other contexts (eg vexatious litigants). Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a flexible balancing exercise, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. There is no rigid test or definition, and it will often be easy to recognise. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause distress, disruption or irritation, without any proper or justified cause.

To help you identify a vexatious request, we recommend that you consider the following questions, taking into account the context and history of the request:

• Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
• Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to
staff?
• Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
• Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
• Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

To judge a request vexatious, you should usually be able to make
relatively strong arguments under more than one of these headings.

Link here;
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

NP will find it difficult to make ‘strong arguments’ under any of
the above, However, I am requesting that they answer following;.

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered dealing with this request.

3. Please give details of when NP have deal(t) with this request and or these questions in the past. Please supply me with the evidence concerning same.

I also not that; "When assessing vexatiousness the Commissioner adopts the view of the Information Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) decision in Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner’s Office [EA/2006/0070] (paragraph 32); that it must be given its ordinary meaning so would be likely to cause distress or irritation. The enquiry is based on objective standards. This has been reaffirmed by the Tribunal in Gowers v Information Tribunal and London Camden Borough Council [EA/2007/0114] (paragraph 27).

The Commissioner has developed a more detailed test in accordance with his guidance but it is important to understand that it has developed from these general principles and they guide him in applying his test."

This has got nothing at all to do with my request being ‘vexatious’. Moreover, the News of the World story was only published on the 4th July 2010, some 8 months after NP first claimed a request I had made was vexatious. I did not question this at that time nor did I take the matter any further. However, given what I now know about FOIA it was/is a flawed decision. I say it is also unlawful. Furthermore, I have never asked NP for this information in the past nor could I have done so given the above. Such an exemption should be used fairly and NP have not shown how this request can be deemed by them as ‘vexatious’.

I note that the term 'vexatious' is not clearly defined in the Act, however, guidance on the Scottish Information Commissioner's website states: 'This term could be used to describe requests that are clearly intended to disrupt the authority's work, rather than genuine requests for information. It might also apply if you have already made the same request and had it rejected on appeal to the Commissioner, or if you have unreasonably failed to give the authority enough detail to identify the information you want. However, a public authority cannot decide that your request is vexatious simply because it finds you or your request irritating or a nuisance’

What NP are saying is that I can not make any type of a FOIA request for any sort of information nor ask questions concerning my unsolved 1999 attempted murder case.

I look forward to your reply

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland
-------------------------------------------------------

I repeat once again that I have NOT requested an Internal Review. I am now also requesting the help and assistance of the NP FOI department under section 16 – Duty to provide advice and assistance
which states;

(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made,
requests for information to it.

(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken to comply with the duty
imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that case.

In particular, I also require further information and detailed an also full explanation from NP as to how they believe this request is vexatious. Please also detail/show where and when I asked these questions in the past and also supply any answers you gave.

NP are making misleading claims when dealing with my case(s) and they are supplying absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back such claims. Please supply me with the evidence I have requested.

I also emailed you on the 16th January 2011, as above, saying, inter alia, that Northumbria Police have deliberately withheld this and other information from me. Section 77 of the Act as above, states that a criminal offence is committed if an authority alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any information with the intention of preventing the applicant from receiving any of the information he is entitled to receive. I will also be asking the Commissioner to investigate this matter.

It is also telling that NP did not comment on my 16-01-2011 email.

I look forward to your detailed reply and evidence concerning this matter. After I have been sent this information I will then look at the issue concerning an internal review. However, the information should have been released and NP are subjecting me to further delay. They are also continuing with their cover up in my case and their harassment and discrimination towards me.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

I write in reference to your recent requests made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

You were not supplied a response to your e-mail dated 14th January as
there is no requirement to respond to continued requests where the subject
matter has been declared as vexatious. We acknowledged your subsequent
email(s) as a request for internal review.

As you have clarified that you do not want an internal review of the
responses you have been provided, those requests are now classed as closed
(Northumbria Police references: 0817/10, 0819/10, 0820/10 and 0834/10).

However, as you remain dissatisfied I propose to review the declaration of
the vexatious nature of your requests that you were sent in November 2009.
A review of that decision will determine whether your recent requests
could also be reasonably determined as vexatious as they are relating to
the same subject matter. Please confirm by reply should this be
acceptable to you and we will progress accordingly.

You may also wish to consult with the Office of the Information
Commissioner. They can offer advice on procedures to follow should you
remain dissatisfied with any response provided to you.

Please ensure that any correspondence contain the reference supplied by
Northumbria Police as per the subject title of this email, failure to do
so may delay further correspondence

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh

From: Martin McGartland <[FOI #54815 email]>
on 20/01/2011 19:18

To: FOI requests at Northumbria Police
<[Northumbria Police request email]>
cc:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information request - Costs to Northumbria
Police, taxpayer relating to Martin McGartland 1999 attempted murder case

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have not requested an internal review. I wrote to NP, as above,
on the 14th January 2011 requesting further information and to ask
them to answer the following questions;

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be
vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered
when dealing with this request.

3. Please give details of when NP have dealt with this request and
or these questions in the past. Please supply me with the evidence
concerning same.

Northumbria Police have so far ignored those questions and also my
email. I have not as yet had a reply to my 14th January 2011 email
as follows;

Dear Northumbria Police,

Re: Vexatious

The Information Commissioner***s office states that. Is the request
vexatious?

The term ***vexatious*** is intended to have its ordinary meaning and
there is no link with legal definitions from other contexts (eg
vexatious litigants). Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a
flexible balancing exercise, taking into account all the
circumstances of the case. There is no rigid test or definition,
and it will often be easy to recognise. The key question is whether
the request is likely to cause distress, disruption or irritation,
without any proper or justified cause.

To help you identify a vexatious request, we recommend that you
consider the following questions, taking into account the context
and history of the request:

*** Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
*** Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to
staff?
*** Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
*** Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
*** Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

To judge a request vexatious, you should usually be able to make
relatively strong arguments under more than one of these headings.

Link here;
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

NP will find it difficult to make ***strong arguments*** under any of
the above, However, I am requesting that they answer following;.

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be
vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered
dealing with this request.

3. Please give details of when NP have deal(t) with this request
and or these questions in the past. Please supply me with the
evidence concerning same.

I also not that; "When assessing vexatiousness the Commissioner
adopts the view of the Information Tribunal (the ***Tribunal***)
decision in Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner***s Office
[EA/2006/0070] (paragraph 32); that it must be given its ordinary
meaning so would be likely to cause distress or irritation. The
enquiry is based on objective standards. This has been reaffirmed
by the Tribunal in Gowers v Information Tribunal and London Camden
Borough Council [EA/2007/0114] (paragraph 27).

The Commissioner has developed a more detailed test in accordance
with his guidance but it is important to understand that it has
developed from these general principles and they guide him in
applying his test."

This has got nothing at all to do with my request being
***vexatious***. Moreover, the News of the World story was only
published on the 4th July 2010, some 8 months after NP first
claimed a request I had made was vexatious. I did not question this
at that time nor did I take the matter any further. However, given
what I now know about FOIA it was/is a flawed decision. I say it is
also unlawful. Furthermore, I have never asked NP for this
information in the past nor could I have done so given the above.
Such an exemption should be used fairly and NP have not shown how
this request can be deemed by them as ***vexatious***.

I note that the term 'vexatious' is not clearly defined in the Act,
however, guidance on the Scottish Information Commissioner's
website states: 'This term could be used to describe requests that
are clearly intended to disrupt the authority's work, rather than
genuine requests for information. It might also apply if you have
already made the same request and had it rejected on appeal to the
Commissioner, or if you have unreasonably failed to give the
authority enough detail to identify the information you want.
However, a public authority cannot decide that your request is
vexatious simply because it finds you or your request irritating or
a nuisance***

What NP are saying is that I can not make any type of a FOIA
request for any sort of information nor ask questions concerning my
unsolved 1999 attempted murder case.

I look forward to your reply

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Request for Internal Review.

In your 25th January 2011 reply you claim;
“As you have clarified that you do not want an internal review of the responses you have been provided, those requests are now classed as closed (Northumbria Police references: 0817/10, 0819/10, 0820/10 and 0834/10).” However, my 20th January 2011 reply was very clear. I stated the following in that reply;

“I have not requested an internal review. I wrote to NP, as above, on the 14th January 2011 requesting further information and to ask them to answer the following questions;”

I further stated;

“I look forward to your detailed reply and evidence concerning this matter. After I have been sent this information I will then look at the issue concerning an internal review. However, the information
should have been released and NP are subjecting me to further delay. They are also continuing with their cover up in my case and their harassment and discrimination towards me.”

And also stated;

“I repeat once again that I have NOT requested an Internal Review. I am now also requesting the help and assistance of the NP FOI department under section 16 – Duty to provide advice and assistance which states;”
I at no time said I “do not want an internal review”, I asked for further information and help and assistance, as required under section 16, with those request(s). However, NP have also refused me same.
I further stated, as above, “After I have been sent this information I will then look at the issue concerning an internal review.” NP are making misleading statements and breaching the FOIA when dealing with me, my requests.

My requests; “(Northumbria Police references: 0817/10, 0819/10, 0820/10 and 0834/10).” are by no means closed, “As you have clarified that you do not want an internal review of the responses you have been provided, those requests are now classed as closed (Northumbria Police references: 0817/10, 0819/10, 0820/10 and 0834/10).” Given NP have once again refused to supply me with further information I can confirm that I am requesting an internal review of this and all other requests I have made.

Please also ensure that NP deal with my 20th January 2011 reply when dealing with internal review. I am requesting that they reply to my questions, supply further information and also evidence to back up their claims as follows;

20th Jan 2011

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have not requested an internal review. I wrote to NP, as above, on the 14th January 2011 requesting further information and to ask them to answer the following questions;

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered when dealing with this request.

3. Please give details of when NP have dealt with this request and or these questions in the past. Please supply me with the evidence concerning same.

Northumbria Police have so far ignored those questions and also my email. I have not as yet had a reply to my 14th January 2011 email as follows;

Dear Northumbria Police,

Re: Vexatious

The Information Commissioner’s office states that. Is the request vexatious?

The term “vexatious” is intended to have its ordinary meaning and there is no link with legal definitions from other contexts (eg vexatious litigants). Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a flexible balancing exercise, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. There is no rigid test or definition, and it will often be easy to recognise. The key question is whether the request is likely to cause distress, disruption or irritation, without any proper or justified cause.

To help you identify a vexatious request, we recommend that you consider the following questions, taking into account the context and history of the request:

• Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
• Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
• Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
• Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
• Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

To judge a request vexatious, you should usually be able to make relatively strong arguments under more than one of these headings.

Link here;
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

NP will find it difficult to make ‘strong arguments’ under any of the above, However, I am requesting that they answer following;.

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered dealing with this request.

3. Please give details of when NP have deal(t) with this request and or these questions in the past. Please supply me with the evidence concerning same.

I also not that; "When assessing vexatiousness the Commissioner adopts the view of the Information Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) decision in Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner’s Office [EA/2006/0070] (paragraph 32); that it must be given its ordinary meaning so would be likely to cause distress or irritation. The enquiry is based on objective standards. This has been reaffirmed by the Tribunal in Gowers v Information Tribunal and London Camden Borough Council [EA/2007/0114] (paragraph 27).

The Commissioner has developed a more detailed test in accordance with his guidance but it is important to understand that it has developed from these general principles and they guide him in applying his test."

This has got nothing at all to do with my request being
‘vexatious’. Moreover, the News of the World story was only published on the 4th July 2010, some 8 months after NP first claimed a request I had made was vexatious. I did not question this at that time nor did I take the matter any further. However, given what I now know about FOIA it was/is a flawed decision. I say it is also unlawful. Furthermore, I have never asked NP for this information in the past nor could I have done so given the above. Such an exemption should be used fairly and NP have not shown how this request can be deemed by them as ‘vexatious’.

I note that the term 'vexatious' is not clearly defined in the Act, however, guidance on the Scottish Information Commissioner's website states: 'This term could be used to describe requests that are clearly intended to disrupt the authority's work, rather than genuine requests for information. It might also apply if you have already made the same request and had it rejected on appeal to the Commissioner, or if you have unreasonably failed to give the authority enough detail to identify the information you want. However, a public authority cannot decide that your request is vexatious simply because it finds you or your request irritating or a nuisance’

What NP are saying is that I can not make any type of a FOIA request for any sort of information nor ask questions concerning my unsolved 1999 attempted murder case.

I look forward to your reply

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland
-------------------------------------------------------

I repeat once again that I have NOT requested an Internal Review. I am now also requesting the help and assistance of the NP FOI department under section 16 – Duty to provide advice and assistance which states;

(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.

(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that case.

In particular, I also require further information and detailed an also full explanation from NP as to how they believe this request is vexatious. Please also detail/show where and when I asked these questions in the past and also supply any answers you gave.

NP are making misleading claims when dealing with my case(s) and they are supplying absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back such claims. Please supply me with the evidence I have requested.

I also emailed you on the 16th January 2011, as above, saying, inter alia, that Northumbria Police have deliberately withheld this and other information from me. Section 77 of the Act as above, states that a criminal offence is committed if an authority alters, defaces, blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any information with the intention of preventing the applicant from receiving any of the information he is entitled to receive. I will also be asking the Commissioner to investigate this matter.

It is also telling that NP did not comment on my 16-01-2011 email.

I look forward to your detailed reply and evidence concerning this matter. After I have been sent this information I will then look at the issue concerning an internal review. However, the information should have been released and NP are subjecting me to further delay. They are also continuing with their cover up in my case and their harassment and discrimination towards me.

This case has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 'vexatious' and this will become clear when the information commissioner looks at all the correspondence and supporting evidence.

NP have for 12 years, failed in their duty to investigate my 1999 attempted murder. Despite having evidence for those whole 12 years, that the IRA was behind my attempted murder, NP Chief Constable and senior officers continue to lie, suppress information and cover up IRA, terrorist involvement in my case. NP have also failed to carry out an effective and proper investgation into my case during the last 12 years and they have also failed to carry out many important lines of enquiry and procedures.

I was almost killed in 1999 as a direct result of a flawed and malicious prosecution which senior NP officers deliberately took against me in 1997, I was acquitted by a jury within 10 minutes after a 4 day trial. NP put my life in real danger as a result. NP and even the CPS lied during that court case in a desperate bid to win a conviction against me. However, they failed spectacularly and NP later paid me damages as a result of same. To make matters worse and to show how ruthless NP are when dealing with me, my case, on the very morning I was shot at least 6 times NP senior officers ordered their press officers to brief members of the press, off the record of course, that my shooting had absolutely nothing at all to do with the IRA and that my shooting was related to criminal/drug gangs and that I was a member of such a gang. This of course was absolute lies which were put out to smear me and made up by a group of very senior, corrupt NP officers to cover-up their disgraceful tactics, failings and illegal activities when dealing with me and my case. NP paid me £20,000.00 damages very swiftly relating to above defamation. Furthermore, many newspapers published the very damaging and defamatory lies put out by NP about me. which resulted in me suing around 8 or more national newspapers for libel; http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/29... , all paid me damages and my legal costs and published personal apologies to me in their publications. At that time, all of the newspapers stated that the information was given to them by NP. Moreover, only recently NP have sent me two letters, one from their director of legal services and the other from the SIO of my attempted murder case. Both were categorically clear that NP have never had any evidence that my shooting was carried out by or even connected to drugs or criminal activity and that there was no evidence to show that I was ever involved with drugs/criminal gangs. NP of course knew this at the time. Both the letters also claim that NP had never made statements to the press that my shooting was connected to drugs/criminal gangs. This is an absolute bare faced and blatant lie, I have no fewer than 3 signed witness statements, court affadvits from 3 separate journalists who I myself have never met, who state categorically that NP told them that my shooting had 'nothing to do with the IRA' and that it was a 'local dispute' between 'feuding drugs gangs' and that 'McGartland was a member'. This was within an hour of me being shot, as I was fighting for my life. The journalists have even named the same 2 press officers who gave them the information. I also have an audio recording and this too confirms that NP did give out above informmation.

The above letters have been produced 12 years to late and the damage which has been caused to me since then and which continues to be caused to me as a result can never be repaired. This was a conscious and deliberate act by NP senior officers in their continued vicious campaign of harrassment against me.

I add the above information because I feel that the information commissioner needs to look at all of these very relevant issues to understand why NP would want to lie by claiming such requests are 'vexatious'.
The truth is they are far from vexatious and more to do with covering up very serious failures and illegal and questionable activities by a number of senior officers of NP who in my opinion, are not fit to wear a polce uniform.

I must ask that NP ensure that they supply all of the evidence to prove their claims that I have asked the questions in the past and more importantly, that NP also produce evidence to show when and how they answered those questions. It is absolutely vital that NP do so. We do need to see hard evidence if NP are claiming this is vexatious request. It clearly is not.

Please accept this as a request for an internal review of this matter.

I am simply requesting information concerning my 1999 attempted murder case, information which NP continue to refuse to give me as this victim in this case.

Kind Regards,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland,

Thank you for your e-mail received 28th January 2010, the contents of
which have been noted. You have been provided with responses to the
requests you have sent in via whatdotheyknow.com. In these responses you
were advised that the requests are on the same subject as a subject that
has been declared vexatious.

I have concluded that to progress this issue and offer the best response
in the spirit of the Act, I shall undertake a review of the original
declaration of vexatious sent to you in November 2009.

I shall aim to provide you with a response to the review within 20 working
days of this message.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From: Freedom of Information Mailbox on 28/01/2011 10:30

Sent by: Helen Robbins

To: Freedom of Information Mailbox@Northumbria Police
cc:
Subject: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 0819/10 - M
McGartland Investigation Costs Etc [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] [1]Link

From: Martin McGartland <[FOI #54815 email]>
on 27/01/2011 21:09

To: [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Costs
to Northumbria Police, taxpayer relating to Martin McGartland 1999
attempted murder case

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Request for Internal Review.

In your 25th January 2011 reply you claim;
***As you have clarified that you do not want an internal review of
the responses you have been provided, those requests are now
classed as closed (Northumbria Police references: 0817/10, 0819/10,
0820/10 and 0834/10).*** However, my 20th January 2011 reply was very
clear. I stated the following in that reply;

***I have not requested an internal review. I wrote to NP, as above,
on the 14th January 2011 requesting further information and to ask
them to answer the following questions;***

I further stated;

***I look forward to your detailed reply and evidence concerning this
matter. After I have been sent this information I will then look at
the issue concerning an internal review. However, the information
should have been released and NP are subjecting me to further
delay. They are also continuing with their cover up in my case and
their harassment and discrimination towards me.***

And also stated;

***I repeat once again that I have NOT requested an Internal Review.
I am now also requesting the help and assistance of the NP FOI
department under section 16 *** Duty to provide advice and assistance
which states;***
I at no time said I ***do not want an internal review***, I asked for
further information and help and assistance, as required under
section 16, with those request(s). However, NP have also refused me
same.
I further stated, as above, ***After I have been sent this
information I will then look at the issue concerning an internal
review.*** NP are making misleading statements and breaching the FOIA
when dealing with me, my requests.

My requests; ***(Northumbria Police references: 0817/10, 0819/10,
0820/10 and 0834/10).*** are by no means closed, ***As you have
clarified that you do not want an internal review of the responses
you have been provided, those requests are now classed as closed
(Northumbria Police references: 0817/10, 0819/10, 0820/10 and
0834/10).*** Given NP have once again refused to supply me with
further information I can confirm that I am requesting an internal
review of this and all other requests I have made.

Please also ensure that NP deal with my 20th January 2011 reply
when dealing with internal review. I am requesting that they reply
to my questions, supply further information and also evidence to
back up their claims as follows;

20th Jan 2011

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have not requested an internal review. I wrote to NP, as above,
on the 14th January 2011 requesting further information and to ask
them to answer the following questions;

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be
vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered
when dealing with this request.

3. Please give details of when NP have dealt with this request and
or these questions in the past. Please supply me with the evidence
concerning same.

Northumbria Police have so far ignored those questions and also my
email. I have not as yet had a reply to my 14th January 2011 email
as follows;

Dear Northumbria Police,

Re: Vexatious

The Information Commissioner***s office states that. Is the request
vexatious?

The term ***vexatious*** is intended to have its ordinary meaning and
there is no link with legal definitions from other contexts (eg
vexatious litigants). Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a
flexible balancing exercise, taking into account all the
circumstances of the case. There is no rigid test or definition,
and it will often be easy to recognise. The key question is whether
the request is likely to cause distress, disruption or irritation,
without any proper or justified cause.

To help you identify a vexatious request, we recommend that you
consider the following questions, taking into account the context
and history of the request:

*** Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
*** Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to
staff?
*** Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
*** Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
*** Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

To judge a request vexatious, you should usually be able to make
relatively strong arguments under more than one of these headings.

Link here;
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

NP will find it difficult to make ***strong arguments*** under any of
the above, However, I am requesting that they answer following;.

1. Please explain why NP have considered this request to be
vexatious.

2. Please supply full details of the evidence which NP considered
dealing with this request.

3. Please give details of when NP have deal(t) with this request
and or these questions in the past. Please supply me with the
evidence concerning same.

I also not that; "When assessing vexatiousness the Commissioner
adopts the view of the Information Tribunal (the ***Tribunal***)
decision in Ahilathirunayagam v Information Commissioner***s Office
[EA/2006/0070] (paragraph 32); that it must be given its ordinary
meaning so would be likely to cause distress or irritation. The
enquiry is based on objective standards. This has been reaffirmed
by the Tribunal in Gowers v Information Tribunal and London Camden
Borough Council [EA/2007/0114] (paragraph 27).

The Commissioner has developed a more detailed test in accordance
with his guidance but it is important to understand that it has
developed from these general principles and they guide him in
applying his test."

This has got nothing at all to do with my request being
***vexatious***. Moreover, the News of the World story was only
published on the 4th July 2010, some 8 months after NP first
claimed a request I had made was vexatious. I did not question this
at that time nor did I take the matter any further. However, given
what I now know about FOIA it was/is a flawed decision. I say it is
also unlawful. Furthermore, I have never asked NP for this
information in the past nor could I have done so given the above.
Such an exemption should be used fairly and NP have not shown how
this request can be deemed by them as ***vexatious***.

I note that the term 'vexatious' is not clearly defined in the Act,
however, guidance on the Scottish Information Commissioner's
website states: 'This term could be used to describe requests that
are clearly intended to disrupt the authority's work, rather than
genuine requests for information. It might also apply if you have
already made the same request and had it rejected on appeal to the
Commissioner, or if you have unreasonably failed to give the
authority enough detail to identify the information you want.
However, a public authority cannot decide that your request is
vexatious simply because it finds you or your request irritating or
a nuisance***

What NP are saying is that I can not make any type of a FOIA
request for any sort of information nor ask questions concerning my
unsolved 1999 attempted murder case.

I look forward to your reply

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I now note that you are now claiming in your 31/01/2011 correspondence; “Thank you for your e-mail received 28th January 2010, the contents of which have been noted. You have been provided with responses to the requests you have sent in via whatdotheyknow.com. In these responses you were advised that the requests are on the same subject as a subject that has been declared vexatious.” NP claimed last time they wrote to me that it was because I had asked the questions in the past, which is it? I would be obliged if you could let me know. Moreover, It is very clear from the correspondence on the whatdotheyknow.com site that NP have not 'provided' me with 'responses'. I have still not had the information I requested concerning my News of the World request. NP are using the FOIA to hide and cover up wrongdoing, failings and also serious professional misconduct by Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson of your Professional Standards Department, Temporary Chief Constable Sue Sim and also other senior officers within Northumbria Police who have been involved with my unsolved 1999 attempted murder case.

I note what you say in your latest correspondence, however, you will be well aware that NP are acting unlawfully. they are breaching the FOIA left, right and centre when dealing with me, my requests.

I am once again requesting that NP carry out an Internal review on this and all of my other requests.

I think the following story which appeared in a Sunday Newspaper this weekend sums up this case;

-------------------------------------------------------
COPS have “gagged” former RUC Special Branch agent Martin McGartland from seeking information about his murder bid case.

Northumbria Police are refusing to answer any further questions posed by McGartland about his IRA would-be killers. The force – which has yet to charge anyone with trying to kill the spy in 1999 – claims his requests under the freedom of information were “vexatious”. But McGartland has hit back at Northumbria Police stating his FOI requests were genuine attempts to get to the truth about the attempts on his life. “This is just the Northumbria Police trying to gag me. But it won't work,” said McGartland from his secret hideaway address somewhere in mainland Britain.

Recovered

“All I want is for Northumbria Police to tell me the truth about what happened that day. It is not a lot to ask, is it?” “You would think that after almost 12 years they would be able to tell me who tried to kill me and why.”
“they say it could have been republicans, but I wanted to know was what is their definition of republican? They won't answer that question either.”
In December last year, McGartland sent Northumbria Police (NP) a list of 17 questions he wanted answers to.

Among the questions were:
had NP recovered the getaway vehicle;
the total cost of the NP investigation over the previous 12 months?
Did NP asked Scotland Yard's Anti Terrorist Branch for assistance in the investigation?
Have any suspects been identified by DNA or familial DNA?
Has NP been able to identify any suspects from CCTV footage.

Said McGartland: “These are all reasonable requests for information. Somebody tried ot kill me and I am still trying to find out who did this.
“Within a few hours of me getting host Northumbria Police were quick to release information to the local media saying this was a local dispute, a fall out with drug dealers. It was absolute rubbish.
“They had to retract that pretty quickly afterwards because it was totally libellous and they had to pay me £20,000 in damages plus my costs.
“Everybody knows it was the IRA who tried to kill me. They held a long standing grudge against me.”
“But despite his requests for further information, Northumbria Police are refusing to divulge any further information.

In a letter to him, the force's FOI department said “You were not supplied a response to your email dated 14th January as there is no requirement to respond to continued requests where the subject matter has been declared as vexatious. “As you have clarified that you do not want an internal review of the responses you have been provided, those requests are now classified as closed.
(Northumbria Police references: 0817/10, 0819/10, 0820/10 and 0834/10).”
McGartland – who was codenamed Agent Carol by his RUC Special Branch handlers – said he would continue his quest for answers.

Involved

“I don't believe I am being told the whole truth about my case. I have always believed there was political interference in my case because the IRA was involved during a sensitive time in the peace process.”
Meanwhile the public Prosecution Service is reviewing its decision not to prosecute McGartland's abductors Jim “Filter Tip” McCarthy and Paul “Chico” Hamilton, left with Gerry Adams, for kidnapping in August 1991 in west Belfast.
The PPS decided last October not to charge the IRA pair on the grounds there was insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.
Now following a complaint, the PPS has referred the police file on the case to a senior lawyer to consider if the right decision not to prosecute was made.

=======================================================

Please ensure your review deals with all of the correspondence in this matter. It is important that I am supplied with answers to the following questions;

1. Please explain why NP Believe this request is vexatious?

2. Please ensure I am supplied full details of all of the evidence which NP considered when dealing with this request and also their review?

3. Please supply full details of when NP, as they have claimed, have dealt with this request and/or these questions in the past. Further, please give full details on how and when NP answered such questions which they claim I have asked in the past.

NP must now supply me with all the evidence to back up their claims.

This case, as above, is more to do with NP covering up their failings and also highly questionable activity when dealing with my 1999 attempted murder case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to draw the following newspaper article to the attention of Northumbria Police and would like them to be aware that I will be relying on this with regard to all/any FOI requests I have made to NP concerning costs relating to my 1999 attempted murder case;

Police agree to reveal Raoul Moat costs

By The Journal
Feb 7 2011

POLICE chiefs have agreed to reveal the cost of the manhunt for killer Raoul Moat.

The move comes seven months after Moat went on the rampage and hid in the village of Rothbury, in Northumberland.

Lib Dem county councillor Steven Bridgett, who represents Rothbury, used the Freedom of Information Act to make an application to find out the cost of the investigation but was initially refused.

Now Coun Bridgett says he received a phone call from the Deputy Chief Constable Jim Campbell telling him he will have the figures in a few days.

Link; http://www.journallive.co.uk/northumberl...

------------------------------------------------------
I will also be making a separate request concerning 'the figures' which the article claims that Deputy Chief Constable Jim Campbell stated would be released in a few days.

I will also use this as an example of NP's ongoing campaign against me, whereby I am continually being discriminated against, victimised and harrassed and I am even being told that similar requests to that made by Steven Bridgett are being refused even as the victim in my case and I am being described by NP as 'vexatious'.

There is absolutely no reason why NP should not now be releasing all of the information I have been requesting concerning costs and associated costs to NP and more importantly, the taxpayer, regarding my 1999 attempted murder case.

For information purposes only, I will also add this correspondence to other requests I have made on the whatdotheyknow.com website to NP concerning associated FOI requests concerning costs of my ongoing 1999 case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Sir or Madam,

The above link may be broken. I have attached it once again;
http://www.journallive.co.uk/northumberl...

Kind regards,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Can you please update me with regard to the internal review I requested on this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Can you please update me with regard to the internal review I requested on this matter. I wrote to you on the 2nd March concerning same, however, I have not had a reply from you.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

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

Thank you for your recent e-mails regarding Freedom of Information requests
made by you. As proposed I have undertaken a review of the section 14
notification sent to you 13th November 2009. I have attached a copy of that
notification below for reference purposes

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.

Notification of Vexatious sent to you 13/11/2009
“This letter is in response to your two requests for information dated the
11th November 2009 in which you made a request for access to certain
information held by Northumbria Police.

I note from our records that you appear to have recently submitted 4
previous request to us for this information or information of a
substantially similar nature.

Our records also confirm that we have fully complied with our obligations
under the Act in dealing with those requests which we have previously
responded to.

I confirm that Northumbria Police have responded or will respond, in
accordance with the Act, to those requests detailed above and any further
requests which are received prior to 4.00pm on Friday 13th November 2009.

Section 14 - Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is deemed
as Vexatious.

Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with
a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person.

I advise that any requests under the Act that are received from you after
4.00pm on Friday 13th November 2009 which are related to those previously
received from you will not be considered under the legislation. I confirm
that any further requests made under the Act, received after the date
given, for information relating to the incident in which you were shot on
the 17th June 2009 and any subsequent information relating to investigation
arising from the incident, associated legal proceedings, media related
matters and any complaints made by yourself related to the incident and
subsequent investigation will be categorised as Vexatious and will not be
administered in any capacity.

You should note that following this correspondence, we are not obliged to,
nor do we intend to, take any further steps in relation to this matter or
any further requests that you may submit that are deemed to fall into the
remit of vexatious.

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 which is attached for your information.

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 it issue a ‘decision notice’ to
ascertain whether we have dealt with your request in accordance with the
Act.

The Information Commissioner’s office can be contacted at Wycliffe House,
Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF or via its website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.”

My assessment of the declaration is outlined below:
As you will be aware, under Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (The Act), there is no requirement to comply with vexatious
requests. There is also no requirement to provide any information or
confirm or deny whether the information is held.

Prior to declaring your requests as vexatious, you made numerous requests
through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I have listed the dates of
receipt of these requests below, previous case law has emphasised that
previous requests may be a relevant factor when considering the declaration
of vexatiousness “in considering whether a request is vexatious, the number
or previous requests and the demands they place on the public authority’s
time and resources may be a relevant factor”. Gowers v the Information
Commissioner & London Borough of Camden [EA/2007/0114]

13/09/09 1759 hrs - our ref number 1610

19/09/09 1227hrs - our ref number 1621

29/10/09 2010hrs - our ref number 1708

11/11/09 1405hrs - our ref number 1750

11/11/09 1241hrs - our ref number 1745

11/11/09 0258hrs - our ref number 1745 (aggregated with the request above)

You have subsequently made further requests relating to the same subject
matter

13/12/10 2144 hrs – our ref number 0817

14/12/10 1708 hrs – our ref number 0819

14/12/10 1725 hrs – our ref number 0820

20/12/10 1112 hrs – our ref number 0834

It is relevant to take into account the volume and frequency of requests
when considering whether requests can fairly be regarded as obsessive in
nature. Each request received since 13th September 2009 has been followed
up by a request for review, this is irrespective of whether you were
provided the information in response to your requests or not.

An authority is not obliged to deal with requests that are manifestly
unreasonable or obsessive. The Information Commissioner’s own guidance on
vexatious requests states “there is a risk that some individuals and some
organisations may seek to abuse these new rights with requests which are
manifestly unreasonable. Such cases may well arise in connection with a
grievance or complaint which an individual is pursuing against an
authority. While giving maximum support to individuals genuinely seeking to
exercise the right to know, the Commissioner’s general approach will be
sympathetic towards authorities where a request, which may be the latest in
a series of requests, would impose a significant burden and can otherwise
be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable.”

Using FOI to prolong long running issues, such as yours, is clearly
inappropriate and the examination of the previous history of the applicant
and their requests to public authorities is also very relevant to making an
individual vexatious. Whilst it is the request and not the applicant that
can be made vexatious, the past behaviour of the applicant will be relevant
if the request perpetuates that individual’s behaviour. This is clearly the
case in this instance.

Case law states that “In most cases, the vexatious nature of a request will
only emerge after considering the request in its context and background. As
part of that context, the identity of the requester and past dealings with
the public authority can be taken into account”. Mr J Welsh v the
Information Commissioner [EA/2007/0088]

Further to this, ICO guidance states “A request may not be vexatious in
isolation, but when considered in context (for example if it is the latest
in a long series of overlapping requests or other correspondence) it may
form part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious”.

You have consistently followed up responses provided to you with further
e-mails and telephone calls with further questions based on the responses
you have received. The ICO has accepted that such behaviour can be regarded
as evidence of an obsessive pattern of requests.

Via the What Do They Know web-site, it is apparent that you have made
several requests to bodies including The Department of Justice (Northern
Ireland), The Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland, Police Service
Northern Ireland, Northumbria Police Authority and the Crown Prosecution
Service

Your requests are clearly part of a campaign and it is probable that you
are acting in concert with other parties who have also submitted
substantially similar requests to this department via the same web-site. It
is in the public domain that you are the subject, and a member of an
ongoing internet campaign and its intentions are quite clearly set out on
that site:

http://www.causes.com/causes/548596-we-t...

In the response previously sent to you 26th October 2009 reference 1610/09,
it has been stated that the investigation into your shooting remains live.
Any requests received regarding this ongoing investigation can fairly be
seen as designed to disrupt the normal business process (the ongoing
investigation). Any release of information which is likely to be to the
detriment of the legal process must be resisted at this time.

I note that one of your requests mingles accusations and complaints in with
your requests, I have attached this below:

Request 1745/09
“Furthermore, I have reason to believe that NP (and others) have
misrepresented the legal advice, opinion which it has received, requested
whereby it is pursuing a policy which I maintain is unlawful, damaging
towards me and even placing me in real and immediate danger.

I also say that NP will also be misrepresenting the information for its own
ends. I am also very concerned that NP have supplied incorrect information
to the QC who gave the opinion. Given that NP's actions in the past have
resulted in my being shot, and almost killed, it follows that they should
not be allowed to withhold such information from me.”

I also note that in response to the vexatious notice you stated;
“NP are simply trying to manipulate this matter, why? It is simple they
will say or do anything to try to get away from releasing information to me
which they regard as embarrassing toward NP.”

You have previously been informed of how to contact the office of the
Information Commissioner should you remain dissatisfied with the responses
provided to you. You have chosen to continue to seek information regarding
the investigation into your shooting (and associated information) by
continuing to send requests to this department.

It may be worth noting that there are processes in place for the
appropriate sharing of information with individual members of the public.
These include victim support, subject access and via the Professional
Standards Department, further information on these services are available
on the Northumbria Police web-site (www.northumbria.police.co.uk). It has
previously been pointed out to you in October 2009 that section 40 of the
Freedom of Information Act explains that personal data is exempt from
disclosure under the Act. It must be remembered that a response to a
Freedom of Information request is classed as information released into the
public domain and not as a response to a private individual.

I have noted that your request submitted in September 2009 where a response
was supplied (reference 1610/09) regarding the costs incurred in the
investigation is substantially similar to your recent submission (reference
0819/10). It was explained to you in our response of October 2009 that such
costs cannot be retrieved within the time/cost limits set out in the Act.
This response was subsequently reviewed and upheld yet you have persisted
in asking the same question again:

1610/09 submitted 13th September 2009
“What amount(s) (total costs) have been spent by Northumbria Police on
their investigation(s) between June 1999, Sept 2009, into my shooting,
attack on me.”

“What was the total number of officers that worked on the case during the
following years;
1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009”

0819/10 submitted 14th December 2010
“What is the total cost of the investigation to date”

“How many police officers have been directly involved in the investigation
in this case”

I believe that the response supplied to the original request is still
applicable at this stage. The full request and response for 1610/09 can be
supplied should you require it. You have continued to submit requests that
are of a substantially similar nature, relating to the investigation into
your shooting.

Having reviewed your requests it is clear to me that the notification sent
to you was not unlawful and was made following careful consideration of the
legislation. It also took into account the context and history of the
multiple requests you have submitted to Northumbria Police. Your latest
requests are clearly on the same subject as previous requests (the
investigation into your shooting) and can therefore also fairly be classed
as vexatious. There is accordingly no requirement to acknowledge or reply
to requests submitted on this subject.

To conclude, I am satisfied that it was appropriate to issue the vexatious
notice 13th November 2009 and this remains the position now. Accordingly
Northumbria Police will not acknowledge or reply to any requests that have
been submitted on this subject.

This concludes my internal review into your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. 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

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor
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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Mr Cleugh.

Whilst I am very much aware that you, yourself are not writing these correspondence or indeed dealing with them, I must make it very clear that your latest correspondence is peppered with misleading and incorrect information, it also deliberately cherry picks quotes from my correspondence with the intent of misrepresenting what was indeed said in that correspondence and it also refers to particular areas and very conveniently and deliberately fails to mention other relevant information concerning the very same issue. This is being done because I say NP, having taken external and internal legal advice on this issue, I suspect have been told that the requests I have made cannot be regarded as ‘vexatious’. However, given NP are so desperate to continue with their 12 year cover up into my yet unsolved attempted murder case and given that they are also desperate to conceal corrupt activity by their temporary Chief Constable Sue Sim and also Chief Supt Chris Thomson and others who I say are also guilty of misfeasance of public office and serious professional misconduct, given they continue to ignore important and potential leads, have deliberately failed to carry out a proper and/or effective investigation into my 1999 attempted murder, failed to carry out familial DNA testing despite having DNA of the gunman, deliberately whitewashed and failed to investigate complaints I had made against officers of NP, continually leaking damaging and deliberately untruthful information to the press, SIO in my case(Chris Thomson), is investigating himself and others given he is also Head of Professional Standards Department, in charge of complaints, and in doing so is acting as judge, juror and executioner and exonerating himself and others of any wrongdoing.

There are also issues concerning NP deliberately using FOIA to refuse me information and documents concerning my shooting case, to the extent that they claim that all or any requests I make at any time in the future concerning my unsolved 1999 case will be regarded by them as ‘vexatious’ and this means, in effect, I am being denied any sort of information or detail concerning my case. The ICO will of course see what is going on with this case when they review all of the documents, not just those which NP refer to, life don’t work like this, all of the evidence will be looked at.

There needs to be a reality check to put things into perspective, I am not asking NP questions or requesting information from them for no reason or doing this to be ‘vexatious’, I am the victim of an attempted murder which NP are in charge of and despite 10 years of my requesting information and answers to questions concerning the investigation, I was refused the most basic amount of information and found it impossible to get answers to questions. NP for the best part of 10 years, at no time volunteered updates to me during this time as they are required to do in law, moreover, NP did not even inform me that some individuals had been arrested in connection with my attempted murder, again as they are required to do, and I only learnt of this after I had contacted them asking questions about my unsolved case. The point being is I am simply looking for answers to questions which I ought to be entitled to as a matter of course. For instance, how can it be described as ‘vexatious’ if I as the victim of an unsolved attempted murder on me, ask NP if they have found the getaway car, if they have any suspects in my case, if they have used familial DNA testing, whether or not they followed up an important lead concerning report in News of The World that a person known to the News of The World had sent others from Scotland to Newcastle to kill me etc. None of these questions would in any way hamper nor interfere with the police investigation despite what NP claim in their correspondence. As the victim in this case, no one is keener than I for the perpetrators for the savage attack upon me that changed my life forever, be apprehended, put before the courts and sent to prison. I would not do anything at all that would prevent this from happening and I find it absolutely disgusting that NP would try to suggest otherwise. The fact of the matter is, that NP are so desperate to silence me, to stop me from asking embarrassing questions, that they will do or say anything whether or not it is true and irrespective of what damage they do to me or anyone else in the process. It needs to be remembered that the corruption in this case goes to very top of NP and there is a great deal at stake, I will not be bullied by NP or anyone else for that matter, I will expose wrongdoing, illegal activity and corruption and I now have evidence to show this is indeed occurring within NP when they are dealing with my case. Those officers are an absolute disgrace and they are not fit to wear a police uniform. If anybody has any doubts about the depths to which NP will go to hound people who they have got a vendetta against, no one need look any further than my second book, ‘Dead Man Running’, which details how NP chief officers along with CPS and MI5, concocted a malicious prosecution against me and which resulted in NP disclosing my real name and home address in open court. I was found not guilty of those trumped up charges unanimously by a jury after a 4 day trial, however, the damage had been done and I was shot as a direct result of NP’s corruption and negligence. They of course paid me compensation as a result of that malicious prosecution. NP chief officers then maliciously and disgracefully briefed the press ‘off the record’ within minutes of my shooting, that the shooting ‘had absolutely nothing to do with the IRA’ and that I ‘was a member of a drugs gang who was feuding with another gang’. Again, NP paid me £20,000.00 compensation as a result and I sued every newspaper that published the defamatory statements and was paid substantial damage from each, plus legal costs and a printed apology. Each and every newspaper told my solicitors in correspondence and sworn statements that press officers, who they named, had given them the very damaging and deliberately untruthful information. This was sanctioned at the highest level within NP and was done because NP believed I would not survive being shot 6 times and given NP armed officers and the ambulance were deliberately kept away from the street where I lay bleeding to death for a full 20 minutes. Fortunately for me, a family who were all first aiders, were on the scene and attending to me during that time, had they not been there is little doubt I would have bled to death within those 20 minutes, given I had injuries to the extent of 6 entry wounds and as many exit wounds where the blood was draining from my body.

The avove once again shows the depths to which NP will stoop to continue with their long running vendetta against me, which has resulted in frequent and blatant discrimination towards me where they treat me like a common criminal and also a second-class citizen. I should add that I have never been arrested, questioned or charged in my life concerning drugs, I don’t even drink or smoke.

I will now deal with some of the wild claims in your correspondence, you claim that;
“This response was subsequently reviewed and upheld yet you have persisted in asking the same question again:” And that; “To conclude, I am satisfied that it was appropriate to issue the vexatious notice 13th November 2009 and this remains the position now. Accordingly Northumbria Police will not acknowledge or reply to any requests that have been submitted on this subject.” You further claim that, “You should note that following this correspondence, we are not obliged to, nor do we intend to, take any further steps in relation to this matter or any further requests that you may submit that are deemed to fall into the
remit of vexatious.”

NP, as I said above, have not spelt out to me exactly what they mean by requests which ‘are deemed to fall into the remit of vexatious’ It appears to me that they are in a sense using this flawed decision as a means to continue with a cover up and to continue to protect Chief Supt Chris Thomson, temporary Chief Constable Sue Sim and other senior officers from being held accountable concerning above and also to cover up failings, short comings by them when dealing with me and my case. One important point about your above statement is that it is completely flawed, deliberately misleading and also contradictory, given the following request which I made to NP was also described as ‘vexatious’ when clearly it was not and nor was the questions asked in that request, ever asked previously nor could they have been, given the content of the entire correspondence within that request; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ma...

I have requested an internal review from NP and I believe that the SIO in my case and also the Head of Professional Standards department and other senior officers are deliberately using this flawed exemption to prevent serious embarrassment to those officers given that as far as I am aware, Chris Thomson has not investigated the very serious allegations included within the News of The World report, which is absolutely disgraceful given NP continue to claim they do not know who shot me and given the case remains unsolved 12 years on and yet the News of The World are claiming they know the identity of a person or persons who were involved in my attempted murder. It’s no wonder Chief Supt Chris Thomson and Sue Sim and others do not want to answer questions which of course would not hinder or hamper the investigation into my attempted murder as NP deliberately claim continually. NP are not fit to deal with this case and I am not making these remarks lightly but I have very strong and powerful evidence to show that those officers have acted corruptly when dealing with me and my attempted murder case.
You further claim;
“Having reviewed your requests it is clear to me that the notification sent to you was not unlawful and was made following careful consideration of the legislation. It also took into account the context and history of the multiple requests you have submitted to Northumbria Police. Your latest requests are clearly on the same subject as previous requests (the investigation into your shooting) and can therefore also fairly be classed as vexatious. There is accordingly no requirement to acknowledge or reply to requests submitted on this subject.”

However, given the history of the case, NP lawyers and their chief officers and even their external lawyers are all bound to say this because whether directly or indirectly involved, they are party to the cover up in this case by their actions and/or inactions.
You also state; “It may be worth noting that there are processes in place for the
appropriate sharing of information with individual members of the public.

These include victim support, subject access and via the Professional Standards Department, further information on these services are available on the Northumbria Police web-site (www.northumbria.police.co.uk). It has
previously been pointed out to you in October 2009 that section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act explains that personal data is exempt from disclosure under the Act. It must be remembered that a response to a Freedom of Information request is classed as information released into the public domain and not as a response to a private individual.”

When I read such remarks and statements which I am aware are at the very least authorised, if not written by the above named officers and also NP legal department, I need to pinch myself just to make sure I am not hallucinating when I read such remarks, given that you and all of those involved are well aware that I made complaints concerning NP’s handling of my 1999 attempted murder case and NP, including Chris Thomson, deliberately subjected me to a 3 year delay before vindicating themselves of any wrongdoing whatsoever, it was a whitewash, I have only found out recently as a result of FOI requests that the ACC of NP and the IPCC commissioner were having secret meetings concerning my complaints and that Chris Thomson authorised 2 senior officers to attend further meetings with the IPCC concerning my complaints. I also learnt that the IPCC commissioner overruled the IPCC caseworker who was dealing with my complaints and she stated in her internal memo’s that she wanted to uphold some of my complaints, however, she was overruled by the commissioner and she even expressed her concern to her line manager, this of course is disgraceful and I have the evidence in my possession and a great deal more to prove that this has taken place. I have even made a complaint against the Chief Constable of NP to their police authority and they initially refused to investigate it until the IPCC informed them that they had to, however, over 5 years on and despite numerous interventions by the IPCC and even one of their new commissioners to both NPA and NP, that complaint to this day has still never been properly investigated.

As I said above, NP will say anything whether or not it is true in their desperate attempt to convince others that they are in some way the victim, the evidence paints a completely different picture and the IOC will sort out the wheat from the chafe.
You also say; “Your requests are clearly part of a campaign and it is probable that you
are acting in concert with other parties who have also submitted substantially similar requests to this department via the same web-site. It is in the public domain that you are the subject, and a member of an ongoing internet campaign and its intentions are quite clearly set out on that site: http://www.causes.com/causes/548596-we-t...
What you once again have deliberately failed to mention is that the campaign you refer to regards to the above link is attached on the header of the what do they know page, which I added, further, you talk about campaign which of course I have an ongoing campaign given the background of both my 1991 and 1999 cases and for very good reason and I intend to increase the campaign more aggressively in the coming weeks and months to highlight police corruption in my cases. You will also see further down this page that evidence is now available, that police in Northern Ireland hid, concealed key and compelling evidence from prosecution service, evidence which would have meant those responsible for my kidnapping would have been brought to justice a long time ago, so I am bound to say that I am very proud to be able to expose and highlight such corruption. So far as the issue of similar requests being party to any sort of campaign goes, is of course ludicrous given a quick check on above link will confirm that there are at least 800 or more supporters and it is my understanding that only I and 2 other individuals have made requests which of course they are entitled to do, 3 people out of 800 or more once again shows that NP are content on making wild and misleading statements to try to justify their unlawful activities. One very important point that needs to be recorded as regards your comments is that requests for information were not answered and questions were unlawfully described as ‘vexatious’ meaning NP have never answered the questions previously so this too was another deliberate and false claim.

One of NP’s more blatant and deliberately misleading quotes has to be the following;
“You have consistently followed up responses provided to you with further
e-mails and telephone calls with further questions based on the responses
you have received. The ICO has accepted that such behaviour can be regarded as evidence of an obsessive pattern of requests.

Again, if the above statement were true, which it is not, I would probably agree with it, however, the reality is much different, every email or question I asked is documented within the what do they know request pages. I merely made requests to ask NP to either explain or give further information concerning their replies to me, so far as the remark concerning my telephoning your office, I have only called NP, FOI department once relating to all of the requests which appear on the what do they know site. I have never spoken to them at any other time other than in 2009 and you will be aware that I did not at that time even request an internal review, given I did not know as much as I now know about FOIA. It is also laughable that the person who signed this latest letter should refer to my having the option to make subject access, DPA request when he is well aware that he has already dealt with such a request which I made to him directly, but which again NP supplied me with very little or no information at all.

You also wrote that; Via the What Do They Know web-site, it is apparent that you have made
several requests to bodies including The Department of Justice (Northern Ireland), The Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland, Police Service Northern Ireland, Northumbria Police Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service.”

You failed to mention that the requests to the Department of Justice (Northern Ireland) and The Public Prosecution Service, Northern Ireland, relate to a totally separate matter, my 1991 kidnapping and as detailed above, there has now been new evidence of a cover up which again you failed to mention even though I forwarded the following link to NP which details the evidence connected to the same; http://www.scribd.com/doc/48716043/ALSO-...

You go on to claim; “Prior to declaring your requests as vexatious, you made numerous requests
through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I have listed the dates of receipt of these requests below, previous case law has emphasised that previous requests may be a relevant factor when considering the declaration of vexatiousness “in considering whether a request is vexatious, the number or previous requests and the demands they place on the public authority’s
time and resources may be a relevant factor”. Gowers v the Information
Commissioner & London Borough of Camden [EA/2007/0114]”

13/09/09 1759 hrs - our ref number 1610

19/09/09 1227hrs - our ref number 1621

29/10/09 2010hrs - our ref number 1708

11/11/09 1405hrs - our ref number 1750

11/11/09 1241hrs - our ref number 1745

11/11/09 0258hrs - our ref number 1745 (aggregated with the request above)

You have subsequently made further requests relating to the same subject
matter

13/12/10 2144 hrs – our ref number 0817

14/12/10 1708 hrs – our ref number 0819

14/12/10 1725 hrs – our ref number 0820

20/12/10 1112 hrs – our ref number 0834

Again, under normal circumstances I would tend to agree with you, however, given the above and the history in this case, the exemption being applied is being done so with malice and deliberately done to conceal and cover up wrongdoing by those officers and NP. The exemption is being applied unlawfully and I am absolutely convinced that when the ICO looks at the background of the case and all of the evidence and more importantly, all of the other requests, that they too will agree that this and other requests cannot be regarded as vexatious. I have listed grounds when ICO will regard a request as being vexatious within my other what do they know request pages and it is very clear to me that NP’s extremely weak arguments will in no way meet the tests required.

So far as the requests which you refer to above are concerned, anyone reading these correspondence will know that anything NP say concerning this matter could never be accepted without further scrutiny and more importantly, evidence to back up their misleading and deliberately untrue statements. It is telling that NP are quick to add text and links and other information when it suits their purpose and or agenda to do so. It is noted that NP have deliberately failed to attach the requests they are referring to this document, what do they know page. I would request that they do so in the interests of both transparency and fullness because it will be absolutely essential for the IC to go back to day one and my first request to view the questions I asked and information and documents I requested and more importantly, answers if any I was given by NP, including their responses. This is very important because NP’s claim that I have asked questions previously or their deliberately misleading claims of ‘similar’ questions is of course open by them to manipulate the situation and to take advantage of requests I have made. One fact that NP cannot get away from is that irrespective of how many claims they make about me asking questions or similar questions previously, is that the evidence in the case, which of course is what counts, clearly shows that little or no questions were ever answered by NP and I was sent the most basic amount of information and documents during this entire period, meaning such statements by them are totally untrue.

I would ask that NP add all of that information to this request page, I also find it alarming that NP have chosen to carry out only one internal review and that they are reviewing a decision which I say was a flawed decision taken by them in 2009. I maintain that this too is unlawful and that it was done deliberately so that they could refuse to deal with all of the other internal reviews, which of course are recent and which have been made some considerable time after NP’s 2009 flawed decision. Given above, I am once again requesting that you immediately deal with News of The World request, given even by the standards of your flawed 2009 notice, the News of The World request is in no way covered or connected to same, the story was only published in July 2010 and the request relates to information as to whether the police have followed up very important and relevant leads in my attempted murder unsolved case.

You have made the following statements; “I note from our records that you appear to have recently submitted 4 previous request to us for this information or information of a substantially similar nature.”

And;

“I have noted that your request submitted in September 2009 where a response was supplied (reference 1610/09) regarding the costs incurred in the investigation is substantially similar to your recent submission (reference 0819/10). It was explained to you in our response of October 2009 that such costs cannot be retrieved within the time/cost limits set out in the Act.

Once again I am bound to say I do not accept any statements NP make concerning same, however, all the more reason why they should supply the evidence and add all requests which were made by me to NP and more importantly, their replies which of course the ICO will need to have sight of to ensure that they can deal with these matters properly and more importantly, fairly for all concerned.

In the interests of transparency and fairness, I am once again calling on NP to carry out internal reviews into all of my outstanding requests, it is disgraceful that I have been continually writing to them for updates on those internal reviews and they have been ignoring my correspondence.

NP have also refused to make any sort of a plausible argument for why they believe my requests are as they claim ‘vexatious’ and as a result, they must withdraw same and deal with all of my requests and release the information I am requesting. I am in correspondence with Chief Supt Chris Thomson and he continually and very deliberately delays replying to my emails and refuses to answer simple questions to me as the victim in this case. NP are continuing with a hurtful and vicious vendetta against me and continue to discriminate against me continually whether I make FOI requests, make complaints or even ask the SIO of my shooting case questions. This is totally unacceptable and given the history, some of which is detailed above, NP, their temporary Chief Constable and Chief Supt Chris Thomson and other senior officers should be ashamed of themselves.

Yours Sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I have just learned that Northumbria Police have also 'Gagged' the Sunday World Newspaper and accused it and one of its reporters of being “vexatious'.

I am adding the text of the story which is published in the Sunday World today to this and all other requests for your information and that of the ICO. This is shocking - What the hell have NP got to hide?

Cops refuse to reveal spy gun hit info
By JOHN CASSIDY
March 13, 2011

THE Sunday World has been ‘gagged’ by a British police force over a probe into the IRA murder bid on RUC agent Martin McGartland. Two months after Northumbria Police refused to answer his questions about its investigation into his 1999 shooting. The same force is now refusing to answer Sunday World questions about the sanctioned Provo hit. And the force – who have yet to charge a single IRA terrorist with the near fatal shooting – claims our request for answers under the Freedom of Information Act is “vexatious’.
It is the same response it gave to Martin McGartland when he asked for answers to questions on his case. Last night, McGartland accused Northumbria Police of a “political cover up’’ to protect Sinn Fein and the peace process. “Northumbria Police can’t give a straight answer to a straight question,’’ he told the Sunday World this week from his secret hideaway address somewhere in the UK.

Disgrace

“I believe Northumbria Police have familial DNA from the crime scene linked to family members of the gunmen.
“I believe the police have told the Government,MI5 or its advisers of this familial DNA and the Northumbria Police have been told not to act on it as it could rock the political boat in Northern Ireland. “It is an absolute disgrace that Northumbria Police can think they can fob off newspapers who are making a genuine request for information about the attempt on my life.
“As the victim in this case, no one is keener than I for the perpetrators for the savage attack upon me that changed my life forever, be apprehended, put before the courts and sent to prison.
“The Sunday World has supported me in my quest for this to happen. Northumbria Police “Neither I nor the Sunday World I would do anything that would prevent this from happening. “Northumbria Police are so desperate to silence me and the Sunday World, to stop us for asking embarrassing questions, that they will do or say anything whether or not it is true and irrespective of what damage they do to me or anyone else in the process.’
Ends;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50616601/Sunda...

I too have been 'gagged' (as have others) and been accused as having been 'vexatious' by NP;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47984176/North...

The truth is that NP are involved in a cover up in this case. They continue to lie and act in a disgraceful manner while dealing with me and my case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

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

Thank you for your recent email regarding Freedom of Information requests
made by you. As proposed I undertook and completed a review of the
Section 14 notification sent to you 13 November 2009.

ICO guidance states:

***The internal review process means that the authority must normally
reconsider its original decision and review how it handled the request.***

The review was carried out independently and was regarding the declaration
of vexatious sent to you in November 2009. As per guidance, the review
reconsidered the original decision to declare the subject as vexatious and
the result of the review upheld the decision to declare requests on the
subject of your shooting as vexatious. The full result of the review has
been sent to you.

The result meant that any request received after the 13 November 2009 that
was on the same subject as previous requests received from you could also
fairly be deemed as vexatious. Accordingly there was no requirement to
acknowledge, investigate or respond to further requests that were
submitted on this vexatious subject.

At the internal review stage, an authority takes the opportunity to review
the actual response that has been supplied to the requestor. In this case
you have not been supplied with a response to any request that has been
submitted after the 13 November 2009 on this subject as the subject was
declared vexatious (decision has now been upheld by the internal review as
previously explained to you). It is clearly not possible to carry out an
internal review of a response where no response has been collated or sent.

As you have now exhausted the internal review process, I confirm that
Northumbria Police will neither acknowledge nor respond to further
requests submitted on this subject matter.

Please note that it is not reasonable to provide links to lengthy
documents as responses to responses provided to you. I must therefore ask
that you supply specific wording when replying to correspondence, rather
than links to documents that are over 50 pages in length as you have done
in response to FOI references 0820/10, 0834/10, 081/11, 0103/11. This
becomes a larger issue when the links provided are to invalid web
addresses.

As previously advised to you, 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

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

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

References

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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I note that you claim; 'The review was carried out independently and was regarding the declaration
of vexatious sent to you in November 2009. As per guidance, the review reconsidered the original decision to declare the subject as vexatious and the result of the review upheld the decision to declare requests on the subject of your shooting as vexatious. The full result of the review has been sent to you.'

NP cannot suggest that they had dealt with any of my requests, 'independently', moreover, it was the head of your department who initially made the flawed decision in 2009 after I made requests concerning my attempted murder case because NP had not carried out any sort of an effective investigation and there was and continues to be very serious questions concerning corrupt activity and serious professional misconduct by NP in my case.

I would once again remind you that as the victim in this case, which remains unsolved, I am entitled like any other person to ask for information from NP. The fact remains that NP have continually lied and continue to use the FOIA to hide and conceal and cover up in my case.

Can you please clarify what you mean by; 'The full result of the review has been sent to you.' as far as I am concerned, no one from NP has ever produced any evidence to justify it's rationale for it's application of section 14 in this and all other matters. There is absolutely no justification for NP doing so and they have supplied nor offered any plausible arguments, in short, this nor any other request I have made could be regarded as vexatious.

I also want to make important points concerning NP's continued comments concerning this case whereby the reason given by them now differs substantially from that given in November 2009. It is also important to remember that there was over a year of a gap between the 2009 requests, (which I did not request internal review nor go to ICO)and those in hand, however, the most important issue is the fact that NP at no time answered most if not all of the questions I asked and as a result, their argument is flawed.

I also note you state in your latest correspondence that; 'The result meant that any request received after the 13 November 2009 that was on the same subject as previous requests received from you could also fairly be deemed as vexatious. Accordingly there was no requirement to acknowledge, investigate or respond to further requests that were submitted on this vexatious subject.'

This of course is a contradiction given that NP have refused to deal with requests for information from Jo Asher, Jeff Hayward and also the Sunday World newspaper. They too have been told that their requests were vexatious and like myself, they too were subjected to very lengthy and unnecessary delays.

What is clear from all of the correspondence in these matters is that NP have not explained to me what exactly they mean when they say that my requests are 'vexatious', at the beginning I was being told it was because I was making similar requests and according to them, asking the same questions, however, as above, the ICO will see when they look at the case in it's entirety that NP never did answer the questions. Then NP began to claim it was as a result of my shooting case, however, I am bound to say that given I am the victim and am making requests for information, that all requests are of course going to be linked and or connected to same.

What NP appear to be saying to me is that they are in effect using a blanket ban to stop me, the victim in this case and indeed others, from asking questions about my unsolved attempted murder case at a time when there are serious questions of wrongdoing, questionable activity and failings on the part of NP.

The FOIA was designed to ensure public authorities are held accountable. NP are using FOIA to hide, conceal and suppress information and or to save themselves from embarrassment. This case has absolutely nothing to do with 'vexatious' and any independent observer will see that this is indeed the case. I will be asking that the ICO request all of the information in this case which of course they have the legal authority to do and at that stage it will become clear to them that NP have been using FOIA to conceal and cover up.

I will now add this reply to the other requests on the what do they know site and I will put same in the hands of the ICO. One last point I want to make concerning NP's remarks about me using links to other pages, it is essential that anyone dealing with these matters has the benefit of all the information and evidence in this case. NP use links regularly, if a link is broken or a site is not functioning, I can do very little about this, however, I make no apologies for using them. I can see why NP are trying to make an issue of same, given their short comings and given they have not shown any evidence to support their vexatious exemption and given their appalling breaches of the FOIA and treatment towards me and others who have made genuine requests to them

I also note from the what do they know website that the following
person; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/bob_w... had made no fewer than 8 separate requests to NP for information from them under FOIA and each and every request was successful and yet I made 3 requests to NP in 2009 concerning my 10 year old unsolved attempted murder investigation and I was told I am vexatious, I will of course be referring same to ICO for their information, it is very clear to me that NP continue to discriminate against me and harass and their long running vendetta, campaign against me continues to this day.

It is also worth noting that this request has very little to do with my 'shooting' but more to do with NP's failings relating.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Sue Sim and Northumbria Police said FOI request relating to Martin McGartland attempted murder case was 'Vexatious'. The Information Commissioner has issued a Decision Notice against Sue Sim and Northumbria Police which states, 'The Commissioner finds that the force incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the request. He requires the public authority to respond to the request in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act within 35
calendar days.' That complain was upheld by the Information-Commissioner, Decision Notice: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72333438/Sue-S...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk