FOI Disclosure Log

Mae'r ymateb i'r cais hwn yn hwyr iawn. Yn ôl y gyfraith, ym mhob amgylchiad, dylai North Yorkshire Police fod wedi ymateb erbyn hyn. (manylion). Gallwch gwyno drwy yn gofyn am adolygiad mewnol.

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

Please provide the following information:

1. Number of FOI requests finalised for the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 (up to 30th September, 2016)

2. Number of finalised requests published on the force's FOI disclosure log in the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 (up to 30th September, 2016)

3. A copy of the policy by which it is determined which requests are included, or excluded, from the disclosure log.

4. The job title/rank of the officer who makes the final decision as to which requests are included, or excluded, from the disclosure log.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative Journalist

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Good afternoon,

Please accept this email as acknowledgement of your request for information. Your request has been logged under the reference number 931.2016-17.

If you have any queries please write in quoting the reference number supplied above.

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: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: www.twitter.com/NYorksPolice

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

1 Atodiad

Good afternoon,

 

Please see attached response to your request for information
(931.2016-17),

 

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

 

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

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

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

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

I am writing to request an internal review of North Yorkshire Police's handling of my FOI request 'FOI Disclosure Log'.

The grounds for complaints are as follows:

1. The request has been finalised by Liz Fryar, who is subject to complaint over disclosure of my personal data in two other FOIA requests made on the WhatDoTheyKnow website. It is an admitted breach - and the personal data was disclosed, in my submission, in an attempt to publicly smear me.

2. Liz Fryar has previously internally reviewed a finalisation of an information request 'Command Team Portfolio Holder' made via this website. She upheld a section 14 'vexatious' exemption when there were no reasonable (or lawful) grounds for doing so. That decision has now been reversed following a complaint I made to the ICO. I have received, no apology, or explanation as to why Mrs Fryar conducted herself in this way.

3. Liz Fryar is part of a group of officers about whom I have repeatedly complained over conduct designed to vex, annoy and harass me. This finalisation of the instant request falls squarely within that course of conduct.

4. The instant request has been refused as 'vexatious'. The test for a request to be deemed as such is “a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA” (Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)). This request does not go anywhere near reaching that threshold.

3. Judge Wikeley in Dransfield further held that "(classifying a request as vexatious) must not be used to avoid being held to account, or simply because the public authority faces a request the objective reason for which is not immediately self-evident".

4. The request has a serious and proper purpose. No evidence has been provided by the data controller, or sought from me, to the contrary. The bare assertion given by Mrs Fryar ('part of a campaign to disrupt the organisation') is, on any independent view, far-fetched and has no proper basis in fact, or law. The 'organisation' is a police force that has little, or no, regard to the law and deeply resents to being held up to any form of public scrutiny. The Act was drafted very much with such scrutiny in mind. Particularly, by journalists. The presumption is for disclosure.

5. It places no significant burden on either NYP, or it's CDU staff. It would have taken longer to present the finalisation in its current form, than provide the requested information.

6. The request is short, plainly expressed and cannot, concievably, have been construed to cause distress, alarm or harassment.

7. It is not part of a series of other requests made to NYP. The subject matter is distinct from, and separate to, any of the other requests I have made to this data controller. Most of which concern policing matters and specific investigations in which I have a reporting interest. This request is specific to the performance of a police force department that has been consistently subject of public opprobium since 2011 at the very least.

8. It's value is to place into context the huge disparity between the number of requests finalised by this particular data controller and those published on the Disclosure Log. Their is ao a qualitative element to consider insofar as it appears that those requests that show the data controller in a poor light are deliberately excluded from the log.

9. This is the type of information, concerning the performance of a data controller and his (or her) approach to openness and transparency, that should be publicly available in any event.

(The matters raised at paras 4 to 8 also reflect the appropriate tests in Judge Wikeley's findings).

10. a. There was an ulterior motive behind NYP classifying this request as 'vexatious', more concerned with the county court claim (C1QZ56W6) in which I was claimant and the chief constable was defendant. The case pleaded does, of course, concern the conduct of the chief constable over FOIA and DPA requests and industrial scale breaches of both Acts:

https://neilwilby.com/2016/06/10/chief-c...

b. It is unethical, an abuse of data principles and of the court's process to finalise an information request with that purpose in mind.

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

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

Following the failure of the data controller to acknowledge, or substantively repond to, the internal review request, a complaint has been lodged with the Information Commissioner's Office by way of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please also refer this matter to your Professuional Standards Department so that the respect and courtesy, neglect of duty Code of Ethics breaches can be appropriately dealt with.

The grounds for the complaint made to the ICO are:

1. A request for internal review of the finalisation of the request has received neither acknowledgement or substantive response.

2. The reasons for the request were carefully and concisely set out on 9th April, 2017 at paras 1 to 10.

3. There is, of course, no statutory requirement under FOIA for a data controller to provide an internal review but ICO Guidance recommends that they do. However, in the case of a data controller who is also police officer, then there is a statutory requirement by way of S39A of the Police Act 1996. It is a breach of the College of Policing's Code of Ethics, in which Authorised Professional Practice is embedded, not to provide an internal review, upon request, within 20 working days.

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

Yours sincerely

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Williams, Caroline, North Yorkshire Police

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Wilby,

 

Thank you for your email dated 09 May 2017.

 

I note that your request for an internal review into 931.2016-17 was sent
on Sunday 09 April 2017.  Authorities have 20 working days to respond to
Freedom of Information requests and therefore this principle can be
applied to internal reviews.  The 20 days start the first working day
after the request is received.

 

As per ICO guidance ‘Working day means any day other than a Saturday,
Sunday, or public holidays and bank holidays; this may or may not be the
same as the days you are open for business or staff are in work’.  The 20
days therefore commenced on the Monday 10 April 2017 and a response to
your internal review was due today.

 

Please find attached a response to your Internal Review request
931.2016-17.

 

Regards

 

 

Caroline Williams

Legal Officer (Civil Disclosure)

Collar Number 5982

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.

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

Below is a relevant extract from the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice:

"Internal review and appeals

If the force receives a complaint, it must provide written acknowledgement to the applicant with an indication of when a response may be expected, which must be within 20 working days.

The internal review stage is an opportunity to consider a request completely afresh. It should be an independent review of the original decision. This process should not be overly bureaucratic. The force must issue a fresh response, compliant with FOIA section 17 if appropriate.

Whatever the result of the review, the force must make the applicant aware of their further rights of appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Full contact details for the Information Commissioner’s Office must be provided to the applicant.

If the applicant appeals to the Information Commissioner’s Office following an internal review, the force must notify the CRU."

The internal review, to comply with the WITHIN twenty working day requirement, was due yesterday. Further and, in any event, the request was NOT acknowledged and would very likely have been ignored (as many others have been by this data controller) without the lodging of a complaint with the ICO. That is the reality - and highly indicative of the general approach taken by the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police to his ethical and legal requirements

The internal review has not been carried out independently. Caroline Williams is a close working colleague - of the same rank and job description - as the officer who finalised the information request. Alone amongst all other policing bodies with whom I interact, North Yorkshire Police do not have an appropriate structure of internal review finalisation. A small team of five people, all of whom are prepared to relentlessly flout the applicable law, each gets to mark the others' homework, as it were.

It is plainly apparent that the review has been rushed out this morning with a minimum of effort and certainly not by taking a fresh look at the request and addressing the grounds for complaint point by point. The decision comprises of a single bald assertion, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Below is a further relevant extract from the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice:

"Vexatious and repeated requests
Further information

Information Commissioner’s Office Guidance – Dealing with vexatious requests (section 14)

Forces do not have to comply with vexatious requests. There is no public interest test and no requirement to provide any information or confirm or deny whether the information is held. In most cases, forces will still need to issue a refusal notice.

A refusal under FOIA section 14(1) must be proportionate and relevant to the circumstances. Forces must retain a full record of the evidence and rationale for the decision.

Applying FOIA section 14(1) is not without risk. FOI unit staff who are unfamiliar with FOIA section 14 or who are dealing with complex cases should contact the CRU for advice and assistance.

There are also provisions for dealing with repeated requests under FOIA section 14(2)."

No evidence was disclosed to me, via a very recent data subject access request outcome, that North Yorkshire Police holds substantive (or indeed any) evidence of my 'disrupting the force'. That is a very serious allegation of criminal behaviour, carrying a high threshold of proof . It is also highly defamatory and, as such, a clear continuation of the persistent campaign by the force (and its PCC) to vex, annoy and harass me at every available opportunity. The force is very well aware of the adverse impact that is having on both my health and ability to function effectively and efficiently as a journalist.

Further, and in any event, no record of rationale for FOIA decisions, or evidence of any communications (or meetings, briefings) whatsoever with the College of Police concerning the various complaints I have lodged with the ICO and, latterly, the First Tier Tribunal have been disclosed to me under the same data request (or the one finalised last year). That places the data controller (a chief constable no less), yet again, in breach of the Data Protection Act.

The complaint to the ICO stands and I will ask them to consent to a proposition to consolidate the instant matter with an appeal to the Tribunal concerning Decision Notice FS 0652852 as the core issue is largely the same.

The complaints concerning Code of Ethics/Standards of Professional Behaviour breaches also still stand - and those matters will be appealed to the IPCC on 24th May, 2017 if not appropriately recorded by then.

All other rights concerning civil proceedings against the force are, of course, reserved.

It is noted that the Disclosure Log on the North Yorkshire Police website is still a complete shambles - and is not compliant with either the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice (a statutory requirement) or the Information Commissioner's Guidance (a recommendation). That is the true reason why the data controller has resorted to smearing, defaming and harassing an accredited journalist over this request, rather than disclosing, very much in the public interest, the extent of the deceit and law-breaking that has been practiced over a long period - and then resolving to deal appropriately with the issue as a matter of urgency.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Dear Mr Wilby

Thank you for your emails dated 9th May and below 10th May.

I can confirm they have both been received and sent to our Professional Standards department.

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Professional Standards Department, North Yorkshire Police

1 Atodiad

Good afternoon

 

Mr Wilby

 

Please see attached for your attention.

 

Regards

 

Sue Pickersgill

 

Collar No 6920

Senior Admin Support Officer

Professional Standards Department

North Yorkshire Police HQ

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

Telephone 101 and ask from me by full name or collar number

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

Dear Professional Standards Department,

The letter from Mr Fincham does not comply with IPCC Statutory Guidance, which given his track record as a PSD officer would surprise no-one. Particularly myself, given the views I have expressed about the limited capabilities and notably poor attitude of this officer, both in open forum and in meetings with the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), Mrs Mulligan.

As basic requirements, under IPCC Statutory Guidance, he is required to identify:

1. The complaints that have been recorded by reference to the Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Behaviour.

2. Whom the complaints have been recorded against. (For example, some of the complaints are plainly against the chief constable and Mr Fincham is not the appropriate authority in that instance).

3. The name of the investigating officer (if complaints are to be investigated) or the resolution officer (if it is proposed that that issues are locally resolved).

Further, he should have communicated with me to establish what the core of my concerns are and how they can proportionately disposed of. He should have also indicated, by reference to the severity assessment, whether this was a matter that should have been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) for a mode of investigation decision. In my submission it clearly should have been. If not by PSD then by the PCC's chief executive, who is the appropriate authority in the matter of complaints against the chief constable.

For all of these reasons the letter from Mr Fincham is, in effect, a nullity and will be regarded as such. It has no legal standing, whatsoever.

I will raise my concerns, yet again, about this officer, and his role within the police complaints system, with both the IPCC and the PCC.

In the meantime, I suggest that a competent officer, familiar with the relevant stautory framework, starts afresh and deals appropriately with the matters that I have carefully set out above, insofar as they concern officers OTHER than the chief constable, and that this posting is passed on to the PCC for her to deal with the matters that DO concern the chief constable.

If the complaints are not all satisfactorily recorded, on or before 24th May, 2017, then the appropriate non-recording appeals will be notified to the IPCC.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Professional Standards Department, North Yorkshire Police

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Wilby

 

Please find the letter attached for your attention.

 

Julie Docherty

Collar No. 4456

Administration Officer

Professional Standards Department

North Yorkshire Police HQ

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

Telephone 101 and ask for Julie Docherty or Collar No. 4456

 

Please send all responses to the Professional Standards Department generic
email address

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

A complaint under section 50 of the Act was lodged with the Information Comissioner's Office (ICO) on 8th August, 2017.

The grounds for complaint as set out in a letter to the ICO are:

1. The information request was made via the What Do They Know website.

2. Disclosure was refused by relying on a section 14 exemption.

3. An internal review, also finalised outside of statutory timescales, upheld the exemption. It did not provide a detailed rationale and was absent of any supporting evidence.

4. Section 10 of the Act requires a data controller to deal with requests PROMPTLY. A refusal to disclose any of the information - even the operational name of investigation - was given on the 20th working day. The Act and the Guidance given by the Information Commissioner's Office makes it clear that the 20th working day is very much a backstop.

5. Section 45 guides public authorities on good practice for internal review, as does the ICO’s Guidance on the subject. More crucially in the instant request, the public authority is bound by the Police Act, 1996 at section 39A which gives rise to the Code of Ethics. Embedded is the Code is Authorised Professional Practice (APP) for police officers. APP is explicit in that it requires internal review requests to be finalised within 20 working days.

6. The exemption relied upon not to disclose any of the information is set out in Section 14(1) of the Act. The test for a request to be deemed as such is “a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA” (Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)). The instant request does not go anywhere near reaching that threshold.

7. I refer to ICO Guidance, which sets out the following considerations and I deal with each of them in turn:
(i) Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
- The data controller makes no submissions in this regard. My own submission is concise: The request places no significant burden on North Yorkshire Police. The requested information should be readily to hand and in concise form. Or, alternatively, it should be published by the police force’s Joint Internal Audit Committee on the police website.

(ii) Is it fair to regard the request as obsessive?
- The data controller makes no submissions in this regard. My own submission is concise: There is no element of obsession present. I seek information that (a) should already be part of a publication scheme (b) is of very substantial public interest (c) a routine enquiry by an accredited investigative journalist who has uncovered industrial scale non-compliance with the Act.

(iii) Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
- The data controller makes no submissions in this regard. My own submission is concise: The request is short, plainly expressed and cannot, conceivably, have been construed to cause distress, alarm or harassment.

(iv) Is it designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
- The public authority relies entirely on this point. My own submission is concise: The request falls squarely within the terms of the Act, as part of my own professional remit and is not disruptive, or annoying, in the ordinary meaning of those words. The exposure of industrial scale failings within a police force is not something that should disrupt a police force. It should welcome external scrutiny enthusiastically a view it as a platform for putting things right.

Conversely, and perversely, I submit as part of this complaint that the finalisation of this request by the data controller was designed with those very purposes in mind. It is intended to disrupt my vocation as an investigative journalist and annoy me to the extent that the data controller has grasped this as yet another opportunity to smear, vex and harass.

(v) Does it lack any serious purpose or value?
- The data controller makes no submissions in this regard. My own submission are well rehearsed regarding its value in the preceding paragraphs.

8 a. Judge Wikeley in 'Dransfield' further held that "(classifying a request as vexatious) must not be used to avoid being held to account, or simply because the public authority faces a request the objective reason for which is not immediately self-evident". It is my submission that the public authority is seeking to avoid scrutiny over industrial scale failings under the Act.
b. Reading the public authority’s finalisation of the instant request, the mythical man on the Clapham omnibus may well take the view that North Yorkshire Police would prefer to keep its industrial law-breaking a secret - and the world to be none the wiser about its scandalous approach to its responsibility under the Act.

9. The other test examined by Judge Wikeley in Dransfield - and not mentioned at all in the finalisations - is that a request is not part of a series of other requests made to the data controller. For the avoidance of doubt, this is my first, and only, request to this public authority regarding their FOI Disclosure Log.

10. The finalisation of the instant request discloses my personal data, in clear breach of the Data Protection Act.

11. The finalisation is a sub-optimal response that simply reeks of sententious piety. It is also oppressive, completely lacking in objectivity and driven by political imperative, rather than cold analysis.

12. Information requests are, by definition under the Act, applicant blind and the overriding presumption under the Act is for disclosure, not a satellite police investigation into my activities as a journalist. It is a gross abuse of this public authority’s responsibilities of the Act and of the Code of Ethics, by officers engaged by him to deal with requests, under delegated powers, to turn an information request into a personal attack on the motives, professionalism and integrity of an NUJ-accredited journalist.

13. The image of a police force – and the chief constable that leads it – setting about a serious task with a concluded (and falsely grounded) sense of purpose should be one that every right-thinking person in this country finds abhorrent.

As other significant evidential materials have been revealed, in the intervening period, that impact on this request and the subsequent processing of it by NYP, I will be exercising my right to amend those grounds once the complaint is allocated to an ICO caseworker.

There is also the impact of the new leading authority applied to journalists making information requests - Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary (18030/11) - which has now come to light .

Read more here: https://panopticonblog.com/2016/11/14/hu...

All other rights concerning civil remedy for data breaches; engagement of my convention rights under Articles 8 and 10: and harassment proceedings against the chief constable are, accordingly, reserved.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Williams, Caroline, North Yorkshire Police

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Wilby,

 

Please find attached a further response in relation to your Freedom of
Information request 931.2016-17.

 

Regards

 

Caroline Williams

Legal Officer (Civil Disclosure)

Collar Number 5982

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police HQ

Alverton Court

Crosby Road

Northallerton

North Yorkshire

DL6 1BF

 

DX68810 Northallerton 2

 

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

 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

 

References

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

Dear North Yorkshire Police ('NYP"),

Please pass this on to the person who conducts reviews of requests made under the Freedom of Information Act ("the Act").

I am writing to request an internal review of NYP's handling of this request, headlined 'FOI Disclosure Log'.

The grounds for complaint are:

1. This request has taken 330 (THREE HUNDRED AND THIRTY) days to finalise. That, taken in the context of other non compliant finalisations of information requests I have made to NYP, may well amount to 'seriously improper conduct', as defined in section 77 of the Act.

For example:

(i) Eight of my first nine requests to NYP were all finalised as non-compliant (URN’s 489.2015.16; 15.2015.16; 268.2015.16; 1117.2015.16; 1224.2015.16; 1225.2015.16; 198.2015.16; 305.2015.16).
(ii) Most of those requests at sub-para (i) above could safely be characterised as non-complex. Six of them were finalised months overdue, not days or weeks. 489.2015.16 took 377 (THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN) days to finalise.
(iii) A subsequent request was not finalised at all, and required a notice to be served on NYP by the ICO to force disclosure (URN 447.2016.17).
(iv) A further request (URN 499.2016.17) was finalised as vexatious. NYP later retreated from that position and disclosed the information in full, again following intervention by the ICO.
(v) Another request (URN 441.2016.17 ) is presently before the First Tier Tribunal ("the FTT") wherein the finalisation of the request, the internal review, submissions to the ICO's investigation and in legal pleadings there has been, throughout, a persistent and deliberate attempt to mislead me, the ICO and the Tribunal (those words are carefully chosen).
(vi) In yet another request, NYP's Civil Disclosure Unit (CDU) have refused to answer correspondence concerning URN 438.2016.17 in which disclosure (of an an amount of money, nothing more) is much the most proportionate response following an upheld appeal at the First Tier Tribunal in a parallel request (URN 439.2016.17)
(vii) Finally, NYP conspired with Durham Constabulary to produce one of the most grotesquely smearing finalisations of an information request in the 17 year history of the Act . The ICO, unsurprisingly, overturned the section 14 exemption applied to that request.

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

2. This list at para 1 (i) to (vii) is not to be taken as exhaustive - and all other rights in respect of civil or criminal action are, accordingly, reserved.

3. In all the circumstances set out above, it is necessary to refer the finalisation of the instant request to the Criminal Investigations Manager (Mr McKee) at the Information Commissioner's Office ("the ICO"). He is already seized of another matter concerning the CDU which is, of course, URN 681.2017.18:

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

4. Quite apart from all the other defects in the finalisation of 681.2017.18, it took 450 days (FOUR HUNDRED and FIFTY) to finalise.

5. In the fifth paragraph on page 2 of the finalisation letter you state: "Please note that this amended response should not be taken to indicate that North Yorkshire Police disagrees with the original s.14 decision made at the time of your request or any other similar decisions".
(a) If the section 14 exemption is not unconditionally withdrawn, and a revised finalisation posted on this website to that effect, then the most proportionate option available to the various parties would be to ask the ICO to proceed with the present section 14 investigation, and issue a Decision Notice. In the unlikely event that the reliance on the section 14 exemption is upheld by the ICO, then it would be appealed to the FTT.
(b) You are, in the meantime, invited to disclose (i) The "Various factors considered when the original section 14 decision was made" and (ii) "Those factors no longer present due to the passage of time".
(c) I consent to personal data being disclosed on this website (What Do They Know) if the answer to para 2(b)(i) and (ii) necessitates such data being published . All my rights, on this single occasion, are, accordingly, waived.
(d) As carefully, and forensically, set out in eleven pages of submissions to the ICO investigation (3,549 words), the vexatious conduct is srtictly confined to that of NYP towards me. A matter I have complained of, many times.
(e) In any event, and setting all that aside, any independent reviewer simply taking into account the matters set out above at para 1(i) to (vii) could not, in all truth, reach any other conclusion than NYP are the vexing party in all this.
(f) The point is also made, politely but with appropriate force, that to finalise the request would have taken a disclosure officer, perhaps, 30 minutes to an hour. Yet NYP have been content to waste hours of my time in trying to eke out disclosure of information that should, very arguably, be part of NYP's publication policy, in any event.

6. Nothwithstanding the contentious matters raised at paras 1. and 2. above, I am, nonetheless, grateful for the disclosure provided at Q's 1 and 2. It is an important piece in the jigsaw of a wider investigation into NYP malpractice concerning the Act.

7. However, the answers at Q's 3. and 4. are counter-intuitive to what is disclosed at Q's 1. and 2: It can be deduced from NYP's disclosure that the following numbers of requests were NOT entered on the Disclosure Log:
2014/15 229
2015/16 256
2016/17 167 (in a 5 month period)

8. The figure for 2016.17 annualises to 401. The trend, therefore, is markedly upward. Whereas, the trend for total number of requests is markedly down (which, interestingly, contradicts postings of internal review finalisations by the CDU on What Do They Know). A point on which I have made at least one annotation in the spirit of assisting WDTK users, who request information from NYP (or, for that matter, the PCC for North Yorkshire).

9. Using the balance of probabilities as the appropriate test, an independent reviewer (for example a Tribunal judge) may well find that it is unlikely that, in the light of matters raised at para 4 above, there is no policy (or request to request decision made by a manager, or department head) concerning the disclosures that are published on the Log, and those that are not. Interestingly, the sharpest rise in non-disclosure on the Log coincides with the arrival of a ned CDU manager in July, 2016.

10. My own research, conducted as objectively as circumstances allow, reveals that a number of those requests excluded are the ones from which most reputational damage to the force would flow. Accordingly, the internal reviewer is invited look at the instant information request afresh (concerning only Q's 3 and 4. of course) and provide the necessary quantitive, and qualitative, analysis to satisfy the request: Hundreds of requests do not make it onto the FOIA Disclosure Log each year; the total is rising year on year, quite sharply; there is a very significant public interest in what is not being disclosed in this way, by NYP, and the internal review finalisation should, to satisfy that public interest, disclose the reasons why.

11. If NYP maintain that there is no policy to exclude requests from the Log then the obvious, alternate argument is that there is a derelection of duty by one, or more, disclosure officer.

12. Given the delay in finalising this request and, also, the significance of the matters raised at paras 1 to 4, you are politely urged to expedite this internal review.

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

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

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

Your email will be dealt with accordingly.

Civil Disclosure Unit

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Good morning Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email.

Your request for an internal review of FOI 0931.2016-17 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 HQ
Alverton Court
Crosby Road
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL6 1BF

Tel: 0160 9643526

DX 68810 Northallerton 2

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

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear North Yorkshire Police (NYP),

It is noted that, yet again, NYP 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 respond to requests for internal review 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, at the very least, neglect of duty, discourtesy/disrespect complaints under the Code. Those complaints should be recorded against either the CDU Manager or Head of Department, or both.

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

In failing to respond at all Section 77 of the Act may also be engaged, as the history of this request discloses deliberate wrongdoing by NYP that is now exacerbated by the refusal to provide an internal review response.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200...

If proven, that seriously improper conduct may amount to discreditable conduct under the Code of Ethics.

In any event, this request will now be passed back to the appropriate caseworker at the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) with a request to re-open the complaint file (FS50682046) and for a Decision Notice concerning the Section 14 exemption to be issued. Mrs Jarman will also be asked to address the Section 45 Code of Practice breach which, taken in isolation, would not amount to a great deal. However, taken in context of multiple other breaches over the past 18 months, she will be asked to note these failings under 'Other Matters' at the foot of the DN.

It is also noted that the proportion of my requests (and internal reviews) that are finalised as non-compliant far exceeds the Civil Disclosure Unit average (and getting worse with each passing month). That can only be construed as deliberate - and goes to the evidence of the persistently vexing, annoying and harassing conduct of the chief constable towards me.

All other rights of civil, criminal remedy in respect of that course of conduct of harassment are reserved.

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

Yours faithfully

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil _Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

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

Bates, Robert, North Yorkshire Police

1 Atodiad

Good afternoon,

Please find attached North Yorkshire Police's response to your request for an internal review of FOIA request referenced 0931.2017-18.

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: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: www.facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: www.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.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Dear North Yorkshire Police (NYP),

As unsatisfactory finalisations of internal reviews go, in a NYP/NYPCC field of plenty, this is about as bad as they can get.

Carried out by an officer who is a close working colleague, and contemporary, of the officer finalising the original request (in breach of both Guidance issued by the Information Commissioner's Office [ICO] and the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice [APP]) not one single ground of complaint that has actually been addressed is fully, or appropriately, answered. Others are simply not addressed at all and there is no explanation for those omissions.

To top all that off, NYP now seek to create another 'new' FOIA request where none is necessary. The information at 5(b) should already have been disclosed by way of the original request and, at the very least fell to be disposed of within the internal review, not another, separate, request. As such, the 'new' request has no legal standing. Accordingly, I will be asking the ICO to direct that it is annulled, as part of my complaints to them (see below).

In all truth, a Year 7 school pupil (unfettered by restrictive constraints from the disclosure unit manager, or the Head of Department, or both) may well have done better in responding to this internal review request - and in much less time than it has taken NYP to do it.

On any independent view of the history of the instant request, this is not only another vivid example of the intention of the chief constable, and other senior officers in NYP, to vex, annoy and harass me at every possible opportunity, but the mind-numbing incapacity of NYP disclosure officers to deal with information requests, and internal review requests that inevitably follow them, appropriately, under either the Act, ICO Guidance or APP: Prevention of reputational harm to NYP (or NYPCC), in every case I know of, trumps statutory obligations.

A complaint to the ICO is to be drafted in early course and it will be posted on this thread after submission. This, as no doubt intended by the chief constable, necessitates a further waste of my time and effort - and more scandalous and wasteful dispersal of precious police resources, by the chief constable, for which, of course, he has a very notable and public history:

https://www.scribd.com/document/32317185...

It goes without saying that I will also continue to press for NYP/NYPCC to be placed in the ICO's monitoring scheme in order to address the industrial scales breaches of the Act quantitatively, and the routinely sub-standard responses, qualitatively.

Finally, it is a fact that the ICO is becoming uncomfortable about the amount of attention the publicising of NYP and NYPCC FOIA (and DPA) failings is attracting nationwide. The police commissioner is also becoming acutely embarrassed at being held to account over the perennial FOIA (and DPA) shambles, for which she has ultimate responsibility as the employer of all civil disclosure unit staff. This latest fiasco simply adds fuel to those particular fires.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org