Delegation of Appropriate Authority powers under Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2011

Yn disgwyl am adolygiad mewnol gan North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner o'u triniaeth o'r cais hwn.

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please provide the following information by way of request under the Freedom of Information Act, 2000:

1. Copies of all Deeds of Delegation concerning the transfer of Appropriate Authority responsibilities of the Commissioner to any other member of her staff in respect of complaints against the Chief Constable, together with Decision Notices recording such Deeds.

Broken down by financial year:

2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Thank you very much for your email.

 

This is an automated response to confirm receipt of your email, you will
receive this email each time you contact my office. 

While I have not yet had the chance to read your message, I wanted you to
know it has been safely received and will be acted on.

I receive a very high volume of correspondence and telephone calls each
day, dealing with them in the order in which they are received.

I aim to respond to all correspondence as quickly as possible and do
appreciate your patience. Please feel free to call the office on 01423 569
562 if you would like an update.

There are strict constituency protocols that Police and Crime
Commissioners must follow, one of these states that Commissioners should
only help people from their own constituency.With this in mind it
important that you include your full name, address and contact details. If
you have not, please resend your email with this information.

Newsletter
I send out a newsletter to update constituents on what I am doing as a
Police and Crime Commissioner. If you would like to receive my newsletter,
please sign up at: [1]http://eepurl.com/_vz89

Once again thank you for taking the time to contact me.

 

Julia Mulligan

Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire

References

Visible links
1. http://eepurl.com/_vz89

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner's handling of my FOI request 'Delegation of Appropriate Authority powers under Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2011'.

The grounds for review are:

1. The request was not finalised within the statutory 20 working day period.

2. The manner in which this information request has been dealt with is outside College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice in respect of FOIA requests.

3. It is claimed, in open letter to me, by solicitors acting for the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner that my six previous FOIA requests to her office have all been 'vexatious'. Please provide ALL the documentary evidence that supports these assertions. Emails, meeting notes, briefing notes, logs, pocket books and the like.

For the avoidance of doubt the question of ANY of my requests being 'vexatious', let alone all, has never once been raised with me by the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner either in meetings with her, or by any of her staff with whom I correspond frequently.

4. Please state in open correspondence, on this website, whether this particular FOIA request is classified as 'vexatious'. If so, please state the reasons and reference your answer to Dransfield (Upper Tribunal before Judge Wikely) which is now the leading legal authority on the topic.

5. It is further claimed by the same solicitors (Weightmans) that in each and every case - not limited to my own FOIA requests - all information requests finalised on behalf of North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner have been, and are, compliant with FOIA. Please provide ALL documentary evidence that supports that assertion. Date request received, URN, date finalised, date review requested (if any), date review finalised.

6. The two claims made by Weightmans have been embellished by another solicitor, seemingly acting for the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, although he actually works for Cleveland Police. Mr Stephen Hodgson also claims that the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner is FOIA (and DPA) compliant in every respect, although he has not burdened me with any evidence to support those claims, despite an invitation to do so. Please disclose all ecommunications, meeting notes, briefing notes involving Mr Hodgson and any member of NYOPCC staff, or the Commissioner, on the subject of FOIA/DPA compliance.

7. Failure to comply with statute and authorised professional practice constitutes, in the case of this and all other non-compliant FOIA's, a breach of the College of Policing's Code of Ethics. All complaint rights against the Head of Joint Corporate Services are reserved, pending receipt of the above review.

8. You are reminded that the review is required to be delivered within 20 working days. I accept that you may wish to treat the requested information at paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 as new requests, The period for finalisation is the same: 20 working days.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Thank you very much for your email.

 

This is an automated response to confirm receipt of your email, you will
receive this email each time you contact my office. 

While I have not yet had the chance to read your message, I wanted you to
know it has been safely received and will be acted on.

I receive a very high volume of correspondence and telephone calls each
day, dealing with them in the order in which they are received.

I aim to respond to all correspondence as quickly as possible and do
appreciate your patience. Please feel free to call the office on 01423 569
562 if you would like an update.

There are strict constituency protocols that Police and Crime
Commissioners must follow, one of these states that Commissioners should
only help people from their own constituency.With this in mind it
important that you include your full name, address and contact details. If
you have not, please resend your email with this information.

Newsletter
I send out a newsletter to update constituents on what I am doing as a
Police and Crime Commissioner. If you would like to receive my newsletter,
please sign up at: [1]http://eepurl.com/_vz89

Once again thank you for taking the time to contact me.

 

Julia Mulligan

Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire

References

Visible links
1. http://eepurl.com/_vz89

Bates, Robert,

1 Atodiad

Classification: PROTECT

Good afternoon,

 

Please find attached The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s
response to your Freedom of Information request referenced 427.2016-17.

 

Kind regards,

 

Robert Bates

Collar Number 5480

Legal Officer (Civil Disclosure)

North Yorkshire Police

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

Web: [1]www.northyorkshire.police.uk

Facebook: [2]www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice

Twitter: [3]www.twitter.com/NYorksPolice

 

FOI 427.2016-17 Response.pdf
PROTECT

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/
2. http://www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePo...
3. http://www.twitter.com/NYorksPolice

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Thank you for providing a response to this FOI request, albeit outside of your statutory obligation.

You already have my request for an internal review, which is due for finalisation on 30th August.

Please add the following paragraphs to that internal review:

2 (b) The information provided by the Civil Disclosure Unit does not, on the face of what is disclosed behind the hyperlinks, satisfy the request, or even go close to it. It is implicit in the request that I have made that the information sought is documentary evidence of transfer of statutory powers of the Commissioner within the legislative framework applicable to police complaints. If no such information or documents exist then you are invited to state that plainly when finalising this review.

2 (c) The manner of the finalisation of this request and the unexplained delay in providing it, is, taken together with the history of other non compliant requests, in my submission, calculated to vex, harass and annoy, obstruct my work as an investigative journalist and put me to needless expense in dealing with reviews such as this.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

The internal review requested on 2nd August has not been finalised within the 20 working day period.

That part of the request has been passed to the Information Commissioner's Office as a complaint.

This latest breach of the Act will also go to the evidence in the County Court claim that I issued against the Commissioner (Ref C5QZ21V8) on 12th June, 2016: The solicitor acting for the chief has asserted in the Defence, filed at court and served on me on 15th July, 2016, that all my requests will, in future, be dealt with in a compliant manner.

There appears to be a tension between what the court has been told by the Commissioner's solicitor and the truth of the matter.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Will Naylor, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Hi Neil

I just wanted to acknowledge your email.

There doesn’t seem to be any questions in the below so I am not sure whether another response will be sent in any event, but as I am away for two weeks from Monday I just wanted to let you know that responses to correspondence my slow down somewhat.

Kind Regards
Will Naylor

Will Naylor
Chief of Staff to the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire

Website: http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northyorkspcc
OPCC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/northyorkspcc

Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire
12 Granby Road | Harrogate | North Yorkshire | HG1 4ST
: 01423 569 562 | : [email address]

If you are requesting information under either the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act or the Environmental Information Regulations and do not receive an acknowledgement within two working days please forward your request by email to [email address]

This e-mail is personal and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus and / or other defects which might affect any computer or IT systems into which they are received, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof’.

Will

Dear Will,

The main benefit of WhatDoThey Know, to both requester and data/information controller, is that there is a complete audit trail of all party-party correspondence on one hyperlink that is, of course, also visible to the wider public.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d....

You are also able to download a zip file of all the correspondence.

The audit trail in this particular request shows that the PCC's office has been non-compliant with the Act at every stage.

I hope that you have an enjoyable holiday.

Kind regards,

Neil

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

In the absence of any reply from the PCC, a complaint was submitted to Information Commissioner's Office on 22nd September, 2016 which was acknowledged on the same day.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

The Information Commissioner has now upheld complaints against you.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbx1ya1p1rzm5e...

At para 49 and 50 of the Decision Notice refers to a 'New request'.

It is clear that a 'new request' was made at paras 3, 5 and 6 of the internal review request dated 2nd August, 2016.

In the PCC's written submissions to the ICO dated 4th January, 2017, now belatedly disclosed to me, Miss Ashley Malone stated on the PCC's behalf that:

'It is accepted that the request should have been dealt with under the act (sic) and exempted under section 40 and a full response provided'.

Please treat this posting as an internal review request following the failure to finalise the 'New request' within the statutory period (section 10) and the failure to provide a refusal notice (section 17).

The materials containing the above statement by Miss Malone were NOT disclosed within the data access request finalised on 11th April, 2017. That will form part of the pleadings in a second county court claim against the PCC brought under section 13(1) and(2) of the Data Protection Act.

It is also submitted that the failure to finalise the request promptly, and the failure to disclose all my personal data as part of the subject access request, is part of a wider campaign by the PCC and her staff to vex, annoy and harass me at every opportunity.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigation journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Thank you very much for your email.

 

This is an automated response to confirm receipt of your email, you will
receive this email each time you contact my office. 

While I have not yet had the chance to read your message, I wanted you to
know it has been safely received and will be acted on.

I receive a very high volume of correspondence and telephone calls each
day, dealing with them in the order in which they are received.

I aim to respond to all correspondence as quickly as possible and do
appreciate your patience. Please feel free to call the office on 01423 569
562 if you would like an update.

There are strict constituency protocols that Police and Crime
Commissioners must follow, one of these states that Commissioners should
only help people from their own constituency.With this in mind it
important that you include your full name, address and contact details. If
you have not, please resend your email with this information.

Newsletter
I send out a newsletter to update constituents on what I am doing as a
Police and Crime Commissioner. If you would like to receive my newsletter,
please sign up at: [1]http://eepurl.com/_vz89

Once again thank you for taking the time to contact me.

 

Julia Mulligan

Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire

References

Visible links
1. http://eepurl.com/_vz89

Civil Disclosure,

Dear Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email.

Please accept this email as acknowledgement to your request for an internal review.

Kind regards

Sarah Saunders

Collar Number 4868
Administrative Assistant (Civil Disclosure)
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police 
Committed to the Code of Ethics
Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.  If using my collar number please state each number individually
 
Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: twitter.com/NYorksPolice

Please note that North Yorkshire Police is moving to its new HQ from 5 July 2017. With immediate effect the address is:

North Yorkshire Police HQ
Alverton Court
Crosby Road
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL6 1BF

The DX will remain as DX 68810 Northallerton 2 and telephone numbers will remain the same.

Dear Civil Disclosure,

An appeal against the FS50646842 Decision Notice has now been lodged with the First Tier Tribunal.

It was allocated the reference number EA/2017/0196 on 7th September, 2017.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2jkjt1r5ha5g6d...

It is not known at this stage whether the PCC will be joined as Second Respondent. For my part, I have made no application to that effect.

No doubt, the Information Commissioner will be in touch with you in due course if she feels input from the PCC is necessary.

In the meantime, you are urged to deal with the latest internal review request as a matter of priority.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Good morning,

Thank you for your request for information, received by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner on 7 September 2017. This is now being processed accordingly.

Please let me know if you have any queries,

Kind Regards

Lianne

Dear PCC,

There has been no substantive response to my request for internal review, within the statutory period of 20 workings days (section 39A of the Police Act, 1996).

This engages prima facie breaches of the College of Policing's Code of Ethics, by which contracted staff within the Civil Disclosure Unit are bound (Courtesy and respect; Neglect of duties).

Further, on any independent view, this latest breach can only be considered as a continuation of the long-running, relentless, alarming and distressing campaign by the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), and her staff, to vex, annoy and harass me at every possible opportunity.

I do not expect NYP to act on the Code of Ethics breaches, or investigate the alleged criminal offence of harassment. The former is of little, or no, account to me; the latter is to be dealt with by the laying of an information at Kirklees Magistrates Court. The PCC has been warned about this harassing conduct on many occasions. Now it is time to put a marker down: Enough is enough

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear Civil Disclosure,

The unfinalised information request and internal review request has, today, been referred back to the ICO.

They have been requested to re-open the case file (Ref FS50646842), record further section 10 and 17 breaches, direct you to respond to the request and internal review, place NYPCC/NYP CDU in a monitoring regime over industrial scale breaches of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Good Morning Mr Wilby,

Thank you for your email regarding the outstanding response you are waiting for.

I will look into this for you and update you as soon as possible.

Kind regards

Holly Earnshaw
Caseworker to the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire
 
Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner
for North Yorkshire
 
Website: http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northyorkspcc
OPCC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/northyorkspcc

12 Granby Road | Harrogate | North Yorkshire | HG1 4ST
: 01423 569 562 | :  [email address]
Unclassified / Protect / Restricted
If you are requesting information under either the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act or the Environmental Information Regulations and do not receive an acknowledgement within two working days please forward your request by email to [email address]
 
This e-mail is personal and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus and / or other defects which might affect any computer or IT systems into which they are received, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof’.
This email and any files transmitted with it were intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know by return.
Please think before you print.

Malone, Ashley,

Dear Mr Wilby

 

Further to your request for an Internal review dated 7^th September 2017,
I can confirm that paras 3, 5 and 6 of the internal review request dated
2nd August 2016 have been picked up and are being treated as a new
request.  The reference number for the request is 681.2017-18.

 

I appreciate that the matters had formed part of your ICO complaint,
however in the circumstances I take the view that it is appropriate to
consider the requests completely afresh and issue a complete response.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions about this course
of action.

 

I apologise for the delay in this matter and for the omission to treat the
requests as a new request under the Act upon your initial Internal Review.
I can assure you that it was by no means intended to vex, annoy or harass
you.

 

Your request is being processed and you will be kept up to date with the
progress of this matter.

 

I note that you have referred this matter to the Information Commissioner
and expect to hear from the ICO in due course.

 

Regards

 

 

Ashley Malone

Collar Number 4951

Police Lawyer (Civil Disclosure)

Solicitor

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police

Committed to the Code of Ethics

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

I refer to the response earlier today from your employee, Ashley Malone.

For the umpteenth time, she misdirects herself completely under the Act, and has caused me significant additional work in contacting you, and the Information Commissioner, as a result.

It is necessary, and I will accept no other method of dealing with this matter, for the internal review dated 7th September, 2017 to be finalised - and within that finalisation an explanation provided for the latest breaches of section 10 and 17 of the Act. Particularly, in the light of the fact that this request is now 374 (THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FOUR) days OVERDUE.

If a finalisation of the request dated 2nd August 2016 (TWO THOUSAND and SIXTEEN) is provided in the meantime, then that is an entirely separately matter. The internal review of 7th September still falls for finalisation under section 45 of the Act, in any event and takes precedence.

That is the postion I am putting to the ICO's caseworker, Claire Walsh, and I am immovable upon it. All the way to a Tribunal hearing if necessary. If the PCC wishes to squander further public funds, pursuing yet another lost cause, then so be it.

Further and in any event, your approach to the instant request, since it was made in August, 2016 also discloses a breach under section 77(1)(b) of the Act - seriously improper use of the Act - in seeking to conceal information that would, undoubtedly, assist my appeals against the PCC that are presently before the Tribunal and/or undermine your Responses to those appeals.

This latest attempt to circumvent the Act, presumably to minimise further damage to the already tarnished reputation of the PCC, is regarded as a continuation of the long-running, relentless campaign to vex, annoy and harass me at every opportunity by the PCC and her staff.

My intentions, in that regard, to bring the harassment to an end have already been clearly signposted.

I am also continuing to press for the ICO to place the PCC's CDU into a monitoring regime as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr Wilby,

Thank you for your email below.

I have ensured your correspondence is passed to the relevant department.

Kind regards

Holly Earnshaw
Caseworker to the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire
 
Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner
for North Yorkshire
 
Website: http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northyorkspcc
OPCC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/northyorkspcc

12 Granby Road | Harrogate | North Yorkshire | HG1 4ST
: 01423 569 562 | :  [email address]
Unclassified / Protect / Restricted
If you are requesting information under either the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act or the Environmental Information Regulations and do not receive an acknowledgement within two working days please forward your request by email to [email address]
 
This e-mail is personal and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus and / or other defects which might affect any computer or IT systems into which they are received, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof’.
This email and any files transmitted with it were intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know by return.
Please think before you print.

Dear PCC,

Following contact with the Information Commissioner (ICO) it has been determined that complaint case FS50646842 cannot be re-opened as it is, presently, subject to an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal.

Unfortunately, that means a further FOIA section 50 complaint has to be made to the ICO, putting me to additional time and expense.

The grounds for the ICO complaint, which will be made later today, are:

1. The PCC failed to provide a response promptly, within 20 days, or at all, to the request made on 2nd August, 2016 (TWO THOUSAND and SIXTEEN) in breach of section 10 of the Act.

2. The PCC has also failed to provide a section 17 refusal notice.

3. In the PCC's written submissions to the ICO's caseworker, Claire Walsh, dated 4th January, 2017, and now belatedly disclosed to me, Miss Ashley Malone stated, on the PCC's behalf, that: 'It is accepted that the request should have been dealt with under the act (sic) and exempted under section 40 and a full response provided (sic)'. That, of course, shows clear intent not to comply with the Act except as a last resort and, plainly, aggravates both the section 10 and 17 breaches.

4. The PCC has failed to provide a response to the internal review dated 7th September, 2017. That is in breach of section 45 of the Act and, further, in breach of the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice (embedded in section 39A of the Police Act, 1996).

The ICO will be asked to triage the complaint as urgent. They will also be implored, yet again, to place NYPCC's Civil Disclosure Unit (CDU) into the ICO's monitoring regime following my repeated disclosures to them of long-term, industrial scale breaches of the Act by the CDU.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Thank you very much for your email.

 

This is an automated response to confirm receipt of your email, you will
receive this email each time you contact my office. 

 

While I have not yet had the chance to read your message, I wanted you to
know it has been safely received and will be acted on.

 

I receive a very high volume of correspondence and telephone calls each
day, dealing with them in the order in which they are received.

 

I aim to respond to all correspondence as quickly as possible and do
appreciate your patience. Please feel free to call the office on 01423 569
562 if you would like an update.

 

There are strict constituency protocols that Police and Crime
Commissioners must follow, one of these states that Commissioners should
only help people from their own constituency. With this in mind it
important that you include your full name, address and contact details. If
you have not, please resend your email with this information.

 

Newsletter
I send out a newsletter to update constituents on what I am doing as a
Police and Crime Commissioner. If you would like to receive my newsletter,
please sign up at: [1]http://eepurl.com/_vz89

 

Julia Mulligan

Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire

12 Granby Road, Harrogate, HG1 4ST

 

Website: [2]www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk

Twitter: [3]https://twitter.com/northyorkspcc

Facebook: [4]https://www.facebook.com/northyorkspcc/

Instagram: [5]https://www.instagram.com/northyorkspcc/

YouTube: [6]https://www.youtube.com/nypcc

References

Visible links
1. http://eepurl.com/_vz89
2. http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
3. https://twitter.com/northyorkspcc
4. https://www.facebook.com/northyorkspcc/
5. https://www.instagram.com/northyorkspcc/
6. https://www.youtube.com/nypcc

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Good Morning Mr Wilby,

Thank you for your FOI below.

We will be in contact in due course.

Kind regards

Holly Earnshaw
Caseworker to the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire
 
Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner
for North Yorkshire
 
Website: http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northyorkspcc
OPCC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/northyorkspcc

12 Granby Road | Harrogate | North Yorkshire | HG1 4ST
: 01423 569 562 | :  [email address]
Unclassified / Protect / Restricted
If you are requesting information under either the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act or the Environmental Information Regulations and do not receive an acknowledgement within two working days please forward your request by email to [email address]
 
This e-mail is personal and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus and / or other defects which might affect any computer or IT systems into which they are received, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof’.
This email and any files transmitted with it were intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know by return.
Please think before you print.

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

On a point of accuracy, the post made on this website (WhatDoTheyKnow) on 13th October, 2017 refers to a section 50 complaint made to the Information Commissioner not 'your FOI' as your colleague, Holly Earnshaw, so quaintly describe it.

Please take as long as you wish to respond, as in just a few more days I am hoping to be the WDTK record holder for the longest-overdue freedom of information request on their website.

Holding that WDTK record, will also provide the grounding for yet another article highlighting the industrial scale lawbreaking of NYPCC/NYP's Civil Disclosure Unit.

You will, of course, be approached for comment when the piece is ready for publication.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Good Afternoon Mr Wilby,

Thank you for your email below.

We appreciate your feedback and I will certainly pass your comments on.

Kind regards

Holly Earnshaw
Caseworker to the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire
 
Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner
for North Yorkshire
 
Website: http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northyorkspcc
OPCC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/northyorkspcc

12 Granby Road | Harrogate | North Yorkshire | HG1 4ST
: 01423 569 562 | :  [email address]
Unclassified / Protect / Restricted
If you are requesting information under either the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act or the Environmental Information Regulations and do not receive an acknowledgement within two working days please forward your request by email to [email address]
 
This e-mail is personal and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus and / or other defects which might affect any computer or IT systems into which they are received, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof’.
This email and any files transmitted with it were intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know by return.
Please think before you print.

Fryar, Liz,

1 Atodiad

Good morning,

 

Please see attached response to your request for information
(681.2017-18),

 

Kind Regards

 

Liz

 

Liz Fryar

Collar Number 4437

Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police

 

Please note my normal working days are Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday.

 

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

[1]www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

Please note  that North Yorkshire Police is moving to its new HQ from 5
July 2017. With immediate effect the address is:

 

North Yorkshire Police HQ

Alverton Court

Crosby Road

Northallerton

North Yorkshire

DL6 1BF

 

The DX will remain as DX 68810 Northallerton 2 and telephone numbers will
remain the same.

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

 

References

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

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request a second internal review of North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner's ("PCC") handling of my FOI request 'Delegation of Appropriate Authority powers under Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011'.

The failure to respond to the first internal review request is now the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office ("ICO"), made on 13th October, 2017.

The grounds for the second internal review are:

1. The PCC failed to provide a response promptly, within 20 days, to this request made on 2nd August, 2016 (TWO THOUSAND and SIXTEEN) in breach of section 10 of the Act.

2. This is a contemptuous breach, on any independent view, and constitutes ‘seriously improper conduct’ as defined in section 77 of the Act. As part of the complaint already submitted to the ICO they are asked to prosecute the PCC over the breach. Unfortunately, the Act is drafted in such a way that only the ICO can act as prosecutor. Otherwise, I would lay a information myself at Kirklees Magistrates Court in preparation for a private prosecution.

3. This latest non-compliant finalisation must also be measured against the industrial scale breaches of the Act, by the PCC’s Civil Disclosure Unit, over the past six years: On average, there have been circa 500 such breaches in each of those years.

4. It also must be said that, after taking 450 (FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY) days to finalise the request, on any independent view, it is a careless, minimalist, almost wholly unsatisfactory response. Yet again, a finalisation has all the appearance of a pre-formed decision (probably made at a higher management level than disclosure officer) with reasons, such as they are, then arranged around it. Yet again, I am put to enormous time and trouble in securing disclosure to which I am, quite properly entitled to under the Act.

5. Absent of any other explanation, it can only be construed that this is a continuation of the long running campaign of harassment against me, by the Police Commissioner, with the main intention of disrupting my work as a journalist and damaging my physical and mental well being.

6. (i) At question 1 the PCC has not stated whether, or which, class of information is held, or not held in respect of this part of the request. The failure to do so is a breach of section 1(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

(ii) The generalised assertion under ‘Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information’: ‘I can confirm that the information you have requested is held, in part, by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’ does not meet the appropriate test: It is non-specific. No independent reviewer could safely say what is held, or not held, from that threadbare assertion.

(iii) You are required to state the type of information that is held, or not held, as the case may be, at the very least from the list provided in the request: (a) emails (b) meeting notes (c) briefing notes (d) logs (e) pocket books (g) any other. The working hypothesis, based on at least one other information request finalisation now before the information rights tribunal (EA/2017/0121), is that exemptions were applied to classes of documents without the disclosure officer having even seen them, or satisfying herself that they even existed. (I have obtained probative information to the effect that Caroline Williams was the disclosure officer in the request that became EA/2017/0121 who indulged herself, quite deliberately and calculatingly, in that unethical practice).
(iv) There needs to be a clear, unequivocal response from the PCC on this point: Did Elizabeth Fryar have sight of any documents before applying exemptions to them (whether they existed or not)? If it is the case that she has not had sight of any documents (and I very much doubt that such documents exist, for all the reasons given below), then section 77 of the Act would, again, be engaged. Such a manner of finalising the request, if proven, would, on any independent view, amount to seriously improper conduct under the Act. Aggravated, of course, by the previous known instance set out out para (iii) above. It also begs the wider question as to how much more prevalent this practice is within NYP/NYPCC's Civil Disclosure Unit (CDU) - and the PCC should, quite properly, invite an outside police force to conduct a robust, thorough investigation into the practices (or malpractices) of the CDU to establish the true position and recommend appropriate action in their closing report.

(iv) Further submissions on question 1. are reserved until the above points are properly dealt with by the PCC. However, please be on notice that, if necessary (see (v)(vi) and (vii) below), I will very likely oppose both the section 40(1) and 42(1) exemptions, once the scope of the issues is properly determined. That may well be via a second complaint to the ICO. My rights concerning civil remedy are also reserved.

(v) It should also be noted by the PCC, when drafting the internal review finalisation, that none of these classes of materials were disclosed as part of a data subject access request finalised on 11th April, 2017. That places the PCC in rather an invidious position, if she now claims such materials are in fact held. That would give rise to a separate civil claim against her under section 13(1) and (2) of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

(vi) Finally, it must be pointed out that NONE of the six requests referred to by Mr Collins, of Weightmans solicitors, were exempted from disclosure by way of section 14 of the Act. Indeed he apologised, unreservedly, for the false assertion that he had made and corrected the position to reflect the points I have made here within this complaint.

(vii) On the balance of probabilities, an independent reviewer would be very likely to find that no such information is, in fact, held. Which may then leave the same reviewer with a conclusion that, once again, the PCC has placed herself well outside of the Act and any recognisable ethical standards when dealing with an information request.

6. At question 2 it is necessary, in order to comply with the Act, and ICO Guidance, for the PCC to disclose the materials held that comprise the building blocks upon which the response was founded: Those materials are the National Police Chiefs’ Council compliance figures for the relevant period. Which is; the date of my first request to the PCC, until date the information request was finalised. Given what you state in your finalisation, it is simply not correct, and indeed counter-intuitive, to say that no information is held to support (or negate) Mr Collins’ assertion concerning compliant requests.

7. For the avoidance of doubt, the narrative at para 6 above is NOT to be treated as a new request. It requires appropriate disposal within the instant request. Failing which, it will become a matter for the ICO and, very probably, a tribunal.

8. At question 3 the grounds for complaint are, to some extent, replicated from questions 1 and 2.
(i) To support your statement that the PCC is not compliant in every respect with FOIA and DPA, it is necessary, in order to comply with the Act, and ICO Guidance, to disclose the materials you hold that comprise the building blocks upon which you have founded your response.
(ii) It is necessary also for the PCC to disclose the nature of the personal, business or professional relationship that Stephen Hodgson holds with her, and whether, in fact, he has ever been formally retained by her to provide legal services of the type that would attract legal professional privilege in these particular circumstances (advice on FOIA and DPA matters). My information, obtained via Local Audit and Accountability Act disclosure is that he has not. That is, further, supported by the content of his emails to me, and their sign off. He appears to be intervening on a friendly, personal basis, not as a retained legal adviser.
(iii) It is not made clear whether you hold, or do not hold, information in the classes that formed the request. You have an obligation under the Act to do so: (a) emails (b) meeting notes (c) briefing notes (d) any other. The inference is that (a) exist. The finalisation is silent on the other points.
(iii) Your finalisation is also, curiously, silent on the fact that Stephen Hodgson does not, in fact, work either for the PCC, for the Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner. He describes himself as a ‘consultant’ on legal documents in which I am now sighted. That casts considerable doubt on the extent, and rigour, of the searches allegedly undertaken on behalf of the PCC.
(iv) For the avoidance of doubt, absent of evidence to the contrary, I do not believe that Mr Hodgson has corresponded with anyone formally, on an instructed basis, at the PCC's office concerning my FOIA or DPA requests. Mr Collins of Weightmans was paid a rather large sum of money by the PCC to deal with those matters on behalf of the PCC. So, the independent reviewer would ask the very obvious question: Why did the PCC need TWO external solicitors to deal with such relatively minor matters? A supplemental question would then be: Why has Mr Hodgson not billed for such work?

I look forward to receiving a response to this review, accompanied by the appropriate disclosure, within 20 working days of the date of this posting on What Do They Know.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

PCC, North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Good Morning Mr Wilby,

Thank you for your email below.

We will be in contact in due course.

Kind regards

Holly Earnshaw
Caseworker to the Police & Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire
 
Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner
for North Yorkshire
 
Website: http://www.northyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/northyorkspcc
OPCC on Twitter: https://twitter.com/northyorkspcc

12 Granby Road | Harrogate | North Yorkshire | HG1 4ST
: 01423 569 562 | :  [email address]
Unclassified / Protect / Restricted
If you are requesting information under either the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Protection Act or the Environmental Information Regulations and do not receive an acknowledgement within two working days please forward your request by email to [email address]
 
This e-mail is personal and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please contact the sender immediately. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
Although this e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus and / or other defects which might affect any computer or IT systems into which they are received, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use thereof’.
This email and any files transmitted with it were intended solely for the addressee. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know by return.
Please think before you print.

Civil Disclosure,

Good morning Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email.

Your request for a second internal review of FOI 0427.2016-17 has been logged. A response shall be issued in due course.

Kind regards

Sarah Saunders

Collar Number 4868
Administrative Assistant (Civil Disclosure)
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police 
Committed to the Code of Ethics
Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.  If using my collar number please state each number individually
 
Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: twitter.com/NYorksPolice

Please note that North Yorkshire Police is moving to its new HQ from 5 July 2017. With immediate effect the address is:

North Yorkshire Police HQ
Alverton Court
Crosby Road
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL6 1BF

The DX will remain as DX 68810 Northallerton 2 and telephone numbers will remain the same.

From: Neil Wilby [mailto:[FOI #343129 email]]
Sent: 05 November 2017 19:44
To: PCC <[North Yorkshire PCC request email]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Delegation of Appropriate Authority powers under Police Reform & Social Responsibility Act 2011

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request a second internal review of North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner's ("PCC") handling of my FOI request 'Delegation of Appropriate Authority powers under Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011'.

The failure to respond to the first internal review request is now the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office ("ICO"), made on 13th October, 2017.

The grounds for the second internal review are:

1. The PCC failed to provide a response promptly, within 20 days, to this request made on 2nd August, 2016 (TWO THOUSAND and SIXTEEN) in breach of section 10 of the Act.

2. This is a contemptuous breach, on any independent view, and constitutes ‘seriously improper conduct’ as defined in section 77 of the Act. As part of the complaint already submitted to the ICO they are asked to prosecute the PCC over the breach. Unfortunately, the Act is drafted in such a way that only the ICO can act as prosecutor. Otherwise, I would lay a information myself at Kirklees Magistrates Court in preparation for a private prosecution.

3. This latest non-compliant finalisation must also be measured against the industrial scale breaches of the Act, by the PCC’s Civil Disclosure Unit, over the past six years: On average, there have been circa 500 such breaches in each of those years.

4. It also must be said that, after taking 450 (FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY) days to finalise the request, on any independent view, it is a careless, minimalist, almost wholly unsatisfactory response. Yet again, a finalisation has all the appearance of a pre-formed decision (probably made at a higher management level than disclosure officer) with reasons, such as they are, then arranged around it. Yet again, I am put to enormous time and trouble in securing disclosure to which I am, quite properly entitled to under the Act.

5. Absent of any other explanation, it can only be construed that this is a continuation of the long running campaign of harassment against me, by the Police Commissioner, with the main intention of disrupting my work as a journalist and damaging my physical and mental well being.

6. (i) At question 1 the PCC has not stated whether, or which, class of information is held, or not held in respect of this part of the request. The failure to do so is a breach of section 1(1)(a) and/or (b) of the Act.

https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

(ii) The generalised assertion under ‘Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information’: ‘I can confirm that the information you have requested is held, in part, by the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’ does not meet the appropriate test: It is non-specific. No independent reviewer could safely say what is held, or not held, from that threadbare assertion.

(iii) You are required to state the type of information that is held, or not held, as the case may be, at the very least from the list provided in the request: (a) emails (b) meeting notes (c) briefing notes (d) logs (e) pocket books (g) any other. The working hypothesis, based on at least one other information request finalisation now before the information rights tribunal (EA/2017/0121), is that exemptions were applied to classes of documents without the disclosure officer having even seen them, or satisfying herself that they even existed. (I have obtained probative information to the effect that Caroline Williams was the disclosure officer in the request that became EA/2017/0121 who indulged herself, quite deliberately and calculatingly, in that unethical practice).
(iv) There needs to be a clear, unequivocal response from the PCC on this point: Did Elizabeth Fryar have sight of any documents before applying exemptions to them (whether they existed or not)? If it is the case that she has not had sight of any documents (and I very much doubt that such documents exist, for all the reasons given below), then section 77 of the Act would, again, be engaged. Such a manner of finalising the request, if proven, would, on any independent view, amount to seriously improper conduct under the Act. Aggravated, of course, by the previous known instance set out out para (iii) above. It also begs the wider question as to how much more prevalent this practice is within NYP/NYPCC's Civil Disclosure Unit (CDU) - and the PCC should, quite properly, invite an outside police force to conduct a robust, thorough investigation into the practices (or malpractices) of the CDU to establish the true position and recommend appropriate action in their closing report.

(iv) Further submissions on question 1. are reserved until the above points are properly dealt with by the PCC. However, please be on notice that, if necessary (see (v)(vi) and (vii) below), I will very likely oppose both the section 40(1) and 42(1) exemptions, once the scope of the issues is properly determined. That may well be via a second complaint to the ICO. My rights concerning civil remedy are also reserved.

(v) It should also be noted by the PCC, when drafting the internal review finalisation, that none of these classes of materials were disclosed as part of a data subject access request finalised on 11th April, 2017. That places the PCC in rather an invidious position, if she now claims such materials are in fact held. That would give rise to a separate civil claim against her under section 13(1) and (2) of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

(vi) Finally, it must be pointed out that NONE of the six requests referred to by Mr Collins, of Weightmans solicitors, were exempted from disclosure by way of section 14 of the Act. Indeed he apologised, unreservedly, for the false assertion that he had made and corrected the position to reflect the points I have made here within this complaint.

(vii) On the balance of probabilities, an independent reviewer would be very likely to find that no such information is, in fact, held. Which may then leave the same reviewer with a conclusion that, once again, the PCC has placed herself well outside of the Act and any recognisable ethical standards when dealing with an information request.

6. At question 2 it is necessary, in order to comply with the Act, and ICO Guidance, for the PCC to disclose the materials held that comprise the building blocks upon which the response was founded: Those materials are the National Police Chiefs’ Council compliance figures for the relevant period. Which is; the date of my first request to the PCC, until date the information request was finalised. Given what you state in your finalisation, it is simply not correct, and indeed counter-intuitive, to say that no information is held to support (or negate) Mr Collins’ assertion concerning compliant requests.

7. For the avoidance of doubt, the narrative at para 6 above is NOT to be treated as a new request. It requires appropriate disposal within the instant request. Failing which, it will become a matter for the ICO and, very probably, a tribunal.

8. At question 3 the grounds for complaint are, to some extent, replicated from questions 1 and 2.
(i) To support your statement that the PCC is not compliant in every respect with FOIA and DPA, it is necessary, in order to comply with the Act, and ICO Guidance, to disclose the materials you hold that comprise the building blocks upon which you have founded your response.
(ii) It is necessary also for the PCC to disclose the nature of the personal, business or professional relationship that Stephen Hodgson holds with her, and whether, in fact, he has ever been formally retained by her to provide legal services of the type that would attract legal professional privilege in these particular circumstances (advice on FOIA and DPA matters). My information, obtained via Local Audit and Accountability Act disclosure is that he has not. That is, further, supported by the content of his emails to me, and their sign off. He appears to be intervening on a friendly, personal basis, not as a retained legal adviser.
(iii) It is not made clear whether you hold, or do not hold, information in the classes that formed the request. You have an obligation under the Act to do so: (a) emails (b) meeting notes (c) briefing notes (d) any other. The inference is that (a) exist. The finalisation is silent on the other points.
(iii) Your finalisation is also, curiously, silent on the fact that Stephen Hodgson does not, in fact, work either for the PCC, for the Cleveland Police and Crime Commissioner. He describes himself as a ‘consultant’ on legal documents in which I am now sighted. That casts considerable doubt on the extent, and rigour, of the searches allegedly undertaken on behalf of the PCC.
(iv) For the avoidance of doubt, absent of evidence to the contrary, I do not believe that Mr Hodgson has corresponded with anyone formally, on an instructed basis, at the PCC's office concerning my FOIA or DPA requests. Mr Collins of Weightmans was paid a rather large sum of money by the PCC to deal with those matters on behalf of the PCC. So, the independent reviewer would ask the very obvious question: Why did the PCC need TWO external solicitors to deal with such relatively minor matters? A supplemental question would then be: Why has Mr Hodgson not billed for such work?

I look forward to receiving a response to this review, accompanied by the appropriate disclosure, within 20 working days of the date of this posting on What Do They Know.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FOI #343129 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the latest advice from the ICO:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

An email was sent to the Information Commissioner, earlier today, in the following terms:

"Dear Sir/Madam

As can be clearly seen by reviewing the below weblink, the action I require the ICO to take is a prosecution of the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (NYPCC). Her conduct throughout the disposal of this information request can safely be characterised as 'seriously improper' - and falls squarely within section 77 of the Act.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Viewed through a wider lens, it is a matter of fact that NYPCC's CDU has breached the Act on average 500 times in each of the last six years. Accordingly, regulatory action by the ICO is long overdue. You are aware, that I have drawn such matters to the ICO's attention, repeatedly, in complaints, appeals, and Tribunal pleadings.

As such, I now require the ICO to provide a formal decision (with rationale), by letter, over the decision whether to prosecute NYPCC, or not. That decision, if adverse, can then be subject to a public law challenge.

In the circumstances, Mr Sowerbutts, as Head of FOIA Department and a practicing solictor is copied in.

Yours sincerely

Neil Wilby"

I will continue to exert every legal means available to arrest the complete disregard of the law by the PCC in finalising information requests. This failing was first raised with her almost three years ago. In that time (rather like the 101 service) the situation has worsened, not improved.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear Civil Disclosure,

It is noted that, yet again, North Yorkshire Police has breached its statutory obligations under section 39A of the Police Act, 1996 (College of Policing's Code of Ethics). Authorised Professional Practice (APP) requires you to provide internal review requests promptly. Or, in any event, within 20 working days.

APP also requires that police forces communicate effectively and explain any contemplated delays.

Failure to meet any of those requirements engages neglect of duty, discourtesy/disrespect complaints under the Code.

Section 45 of the Act and ICO Guidance are also engaged. Although they do not, of course, have any legal standing.

I spoke with David McKee, Criminal Investigations Manager at the ICO, yesterday, concerning the contemplated s77 prosecution. It was anticipated (with some confidence) that North Yorkshire Police would be prepared to break the law to avoid finalising the internal review of the instant request.

On that basis, we have arranged to speak again during w/c 11th December, 2017 and I will be providing Mr McKee with a section 9 Criminal Justice Act witness statement, setting out the s77 allegations against the chief constable.

A decision will then be made by the ICO as to whether to proceed with the prosecution.

Further, and in any event, I continue to press the ICO to place the Civil Disclosure Unit into its monitoring scheme. The regulator is becoming uncomfortable with the amount of adverse social media attention your industrial scale breaches of the Act has attracted.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure,

Thank you for your email, please treat this as an acknowledgement of receipt.

Your email will be dealt with accordingly.

PLEASE NOTE: If your query is to address an urgent safeguarding concern then please redirect your enquiry to the Vulnerability Assessment Team on [email address]<mailto:[email address]>
The Vulnerability Assessment Team is available during office hours Monday to Friday.

Civil Disclosure Unit

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk<http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/>

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org