How many times have Northumbria Police instructed Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors between February 2011 and February 2012

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Northumbria Police

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

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Northumbria Police.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Please supply all recorded information concerning following;

1. How many times, if any, have Northumbria Police instructed Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors between February 2011 and February 2012.

2. Have Northumbria Police entered into any type of written or verbal contact/s and or agreement/s with Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors. If so, please supply full details.

3. Please list all amounts paid, if any, to Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors concerning any matters that relate to the Raoul Moat case.

4. Please detail reason/s for all/any payment/s regards 3 above.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12 - Samuel Philips Law
Firm

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Thank you for your email received today in which you make a request for
information that Northumbria Police may hold.

We are in the process of dealing with your request and expect to revert to
you shortly.  A response should be provided by 10 April 2012.

Please note this request will be aggregated with your previous request,
FOI 25/12 - Samuel Philips Law Firm, due to the cost and time implications
as it refers to the same subject area (Samuel Philips Law Firm).

Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

This all seems very Fishy to me. What have Northumbria Police got to hide?

See these other requests;
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ho...

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/al...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12 - Samuel Phillips
Law Firm

Dear Mr McGartland

In order for us to provide you with a response to Q2  of the below
request, could you confirm if you are seeking information regarding
'verbal contact/s' or 'verbal contract/s'?

Once clarification has been received, we can progress this part of your
request.

Regards

Helen

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #108691 email]> on 09/03/2012 03:54

To:        FOI requests at Northumbria Police
<[Northumbria Police request email]>
cc:        
Subject:        Freedom of Information request - How many times have
Northumbria Police instructed Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its
Solicitors between February 2011 and February 2012

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    Please supply all recorded information concerning following;
   
    1. How many times, if any, have Northumbria Police instructed
    Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors between
    February 2011 and February 2012.
   
    2. Have Northumbria Police entered into any type of written or
    verbal contact/s and or agreement/s with Samuel Phillips Law Firm
    and or any of its Solicitors. If so, please supply full details.
   
    3. Please list all amounts paid, if any, to Samuel Phillips Law
    Firm and or any of its Solicitors concerning any matters that
    relate to the Raoul Moat case.
   
    4. Please detail reason/s for all/any payment/s regards 3 above.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
   
    Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
    [FOI #108691 email]
   
    Is [Northumbria Police request email] the wrong address for
    Freedom of Information requests to Northumbria Police? If so,
    please contact us using this form:
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact
   
    Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
    published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offic...
   
    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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Stop playing games, it means 'verbal contract/s, even you know that.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12 - Samuel Phillips
Law Firm
Dear Mr McGartland

We are legitimately seeking clarification of your request, not 'playing
games'.  We can not just assume that a requestor has made an error in
their request and then go on to provide a response to what we 'think' they
may have meant.

Your request clearly states 'verbal contact/s', therefore if we were to
process your request word-for-word, as asked by you,  it could,
potentially, provide a different response to the information you have
clarified that you are seeking.

Regards

Helen

 

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #108691 email]> on 26/03/2012 12:21 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12
- Samuel Phillips Law Firm [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    Stop playing games, it means 'verbal contract/s, even you know
    that.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

You are playing games and also concealing information that the public, taxpayer have a right to know. You, others must account for public money that is spent.

Regards " ... requestor has made an error in
their request ..." what pure poppycock, my request of 9th March 2012, as followings, was as clear as day;

"Please supply all recorded information concerning following;

1. How many times, if any, have Northumbria Police instructed Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors between February 2011 and February 2012.

2. Have Northumbria Police entered into any type of written or verbal contact/s and or agreement/s with Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors. If so, please supply full details.

3. Please list all amounts paid, if any, to Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors concerning any matters that relate to the Raoul Moat case.

4. Please detail reason/s for all/any payment/s regards 3 above."

Please dealt with the request and stop delaying and concealing non-exempt recorded information."

Have Northumbria Police got something to hide regards this subject matter? It looks like it to me.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

I must advise you that we are not playing games. Nor are we attempting to
conceal information.

I have highlighted the words we questioned below. These are in question 2.
As you can see, your request stated "contacts". It did not ask for
contracts. We therefore sought clarification.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #108691 email]> on 01/04/2012 12:02 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12
- Samuel Phillips Law Firm [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    You are playing games and also concealing information that the
    public, taxpayer have a right to know. You, others must account for
    public money that is spent.
   
    Regards " ... requestor has made an error in
    their request ..." what pure poppycock, my request of 9th March
    2012, as followings, was as clear as day;
   
    "Please supply all recorded information concerning following;
   
    1. How many times, if any, have Northumbria Police instructed
    Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors between
    February 2011 and February 2012.
   
    2. Have Northumbria Police entered into any type of written or
    verbal contact/s and or agreement/s with Samuel Phillips Law Firm
    and or any of its Solicitors. If so, please supply full details.
   
    3. Please list all amounts paid, if any, to Samuel Phillips Law
    Firm and or any of its Solicitors concerning any matters that
    relate to the Raoul Moat case.
   
    4. Please detail reason/s for all/any payment/s regards 3 above."
   
    Please dealt with the request and stop delaying and concealing
    non-exempt recorded information."
   
    Have Northumbria Police got something to hide regards this subject
    matter? It looks like it to me.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

The facts tell a different story. Please deal with my request. The public have a right to know how NP are spending taxpayers money.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

It is not appropriate for this department to make assumptions as to what a
request may mean. We therefore seek clarity in order to provide an
appropriate response.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #108691 email]> on 04/04/2012 22:53 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12
- Samuel Phillips Law Firm [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    The facts tell a different story. Please deal with my request. The
    public have a right to know how NP are spending taxpayers money.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

NP have been doing it since day one, they can't help themselves with their lies and delay and the covering-up of non-exempt information. They are continuing to break the law. I am reserving all my legal rights. I will be talking to a FOI legal expert at some point about these matters.

Now deal with my request as follows and stop delaying and playing games:

"1. How many times, if any, have Northumbria Police instructed Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors between February 2011 and February 2012.

2. Have Northumbria Police entered into any type of written or verbal cont(r)act/s and or agreement/s with Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors. If so, please supply full details.

3. Please list all amounts paid, if any, to Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors concerning any matters that relate to the Raoul Moat case.

4. Please detail reason/s for all/any payment/s regards
3 above."

Anyone reading these requests relating to; "Northumbria Police instructed Samuel Phillips Law Firm ..." would wonder what NP are hiding.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

You will note that NP have to reply to this request by close of business today. The information I have requested should be freely available on NP's accounting system and there can be no reason for any type of delay (other than cover-up) in accounting for public monies.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

Provision of Information held by Northumbria Police under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the" Act")

With regard to your email in which you make a request for information that
Northumbria Police may hold.

I regret that Northumbria Police will not be able to complete its response
to you by the date originally stated.  We are still researching the
information held and considering whether any exemptions under the Act may
apply.

I can now advise you that the new date for the provision of the
information is 8 May 2012.  I can assure that every effort will be made to
ensure that a response will be provided to you within this new timescale.

Your attention is drawn to the attachment which contains your complaint
rights.

Yours sincerely

Disclosure Section

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

The Information Commissioner’s guidance 'Time for compliance' : http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l... states that;

1. "What is the time limit for responding to a request for information?

A public authority must inform the applicant in writing whether it holds the information requested and if so, communicate that information to the applicant, promptly, but not later than 20 working days after receipt of the request; section 10(1)."

Northumbria Police have not confirmed if they hold the requested information nor have they released the non-exempt information within the 20 working day limit.

The guidance also states;

7. "What if the public authority needs more time to consider exemptions?

Any information which the public authority is required to release must be disclosed to the applicant within the 20 working day time limit. Where the
authority is relying on one or more of the exemptions and is withholding information, it must issue a Refusal Notice (under section 17 of the Act) within
the same timeframe, specifying the exemption and why it applies. There is a provision in the Act, at section 10(3), which allows the 20 working day time limit to be extended to a ‘reasonable’ time, where the authority is required to apply the public interest test, because one of the ‘qualified’ exemptions applies. However, the authority must inform the applicant in its
Refusal Notice if it needs more time to consider the public interest in disclosure and must give an estimate of the date by which it expects to make
its decision. [FOI Act, s10(3)] A public authority must be prepared to justify to the Information Commissioner any time it takes, beyond the 20 working days, to consider disclosure in the Version 2 4 11 September 2008."

I also understand that the 20 working day limit can only be extended in exceptional circumstances. This is not an 'exceptional' case nor request.
I am now making a complaint to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I have this afternoon made a complaint to the ICO concerning this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Keep up to date with the Martin McGartland story and the Northumbria Police, MI5 and State Cover-up of his attempted murder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ7zsUJYE...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q5WkKdhu...

http://www.scribd.com/martymcgartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

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

Thank you for your email dated 9 March 2012 in which you made a request
for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

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

Please supply all recorded information concerning following;

1.        How many times, if any, have Northumbria Police instructed
Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors between February
2011 and February 2012.

2.        Have Northumbria Police entered into any type of written or
verbal contact/s and or agreement/s with Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or
any of its Solicitors.  If so, please supply full details.

3.        Please list all amounts paid, if any, to Samuel Phillips Law
Firm and or any of its Solicitors concerning any matters that relate to
the Raoul Moat case.

4.        Please detail reason/s for all/any payment/s regards 3 above.

In response:

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

As advised earlier this request has been aggregated with your previous
request, FOI 25/12 - Samuel Philips Law Firm, due to the cost and time
implications as it refers to the same subject area (Samuel Philips Law
Firm).

Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with the Legal
Department of Northumbria Police.  I can confirm that the information you
have requested is held by Northumbria Police.

I have decided to disclose the located information to you as follows.    
   

We will not be supplying the information you have requested in parts 1, 3
& 4 of your request, and in doing so we will rely on Section 14 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.  You should therefore consider this a
refusal for those parts of your request.

I have provided an explanation to this exemption below.

Section 14 Vexatious Request

Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with
a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person
unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the
previous request and the making of the current request.

To further aid and assist you, I have detailed where these questions are
similar below.  As requests 900/11 and 25/12 are currently subject to
internal review, the exemption is therefore clearly applicable.

1.        It is noted that this request is substantially similar to
request 900/11 question 3.  That request is currently subject to an
internal review.

3.        It is noted that this request is substantially similar to
question 1 of 25/12.  That request is currently subject to an internal
review.

4.        It is noted that this request is substantially similar to
question 1 of 25/12.  That request is currently subject to an internal
review.

2.        Clarification was sought for this question, and you confirmed
you meant 'verbal contract/s', NOT 'verbal contact/s', therefore please
see the following.

        Northumbria Police have not entered into any written contracts or
agreements with Samuel Phillips Law Firm.  On those occasions where
Northumbria Police have instructed Samuel Phillips to undertake legal work
on our behalf they have done so on the basis of an agreed charging rate
which is commercially sensitive, therefore this information is exempt by
virtue of Section 43 (2) an explanation of this is provided below, and
they dealt with the file under the usual professional rules and
obligations which govern any Solicitor dealing with a privately funded
file on behalf of a client.  In that general sense therefore a verbal
contract has existed between Northumbria Police and Samuel Phillips Law
Firm for each individual case undertaken.

        Section 43 (2) Commercial Interests

        Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any
person (including the public authority holding it).

        This is a qualified class based exemption and requires a public
interest test to be applied.  I have set this out below.

        Public Interest Test

        Considerations For Disclosure:

        Accountability for Public funds
        The release of the information would demonstrate the openness of
the organisation to explain and account for monies spent on services.

        Public Debate
        The provision of services to the local community by the police
service is always the subject of public debate.  Any information which
would aid the accuracy of that debate would be of positive benefit to all
parties involved.

        Improper Actions of Public Officials
        Disclosure of the information would show the openness of the
processes by which such services are procured.

        Considerations Favouring Non Disclosure:

        Interests of Third Parties/Commercial Confidence
        Release of the information might jeopardise the interests of third
parties in relation to sensitive commercial information held in relation
to contractual, financial or business issues and to protect the commercial
interests of service providers.

        Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Force
        A disclosure which greatly affects the ability of a product
supplier to operate in a free market would have a knock on effect on the
effectiveness of the force to do business in the future.  Disclosures
under Freedom of Information which harm commercial partners will make it
more difficult to attract suitable suppliers in the future, as they avoid
that risk to their organisations.  This will mean that the numbers of
options to select from could be reduced which in turn could mean either
inferior products/service having to be selected or more expensive options
having to be chosen.

        Balancing Test

        Before deciding which of these arguments is most compelling a
balancing test needs to be completed.  In this case the right of the
public to know needs to be weighed against the damage caused to the
supplier and ultimately the authority itself.

        The accountability for public funds is a powerful argument.
 However, this is offset by the fact that the authority is already subject
to a financial audit and is therefore already held accountable for the
money that it spends.  This process will not be enhanced by a disclosure
under FOIA.

        When analysing the impact of commercial harm, the number of
competitors will always be a factor.  The fact that there are a number of
suppliers in the market place for a service does mean that there is clear
evidence that the preferred supplier process will always attract
competitive quotes.  This means that the public may get good value for
money, this is further guaranteed by the fact that the police service uses
tried and tested procurement processes, which are not enhanced by the
disclosure of this information.  To disclose any information regarding a
service providers tendering application may, in the future, discourage
that supplier from working with the Force, which may in turn be
detrimental to the procurement process and the community as a whole.
 Therefore on balance at this time, the public interest test does not
favour disclosure.

        You should consider this to be a refusal notice under section 17
of the Act for certain parts of your request outlined above.

You may be interested to know that Northumbria Police routinely publish
information that has been disclosed by Northumbria Police in response to
requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 via the Disclosure
Log.  The aim of the Disclosure Log is to promote openness and
transparency by voluntarily placing information into the public arena.

Whilst it is not possible to publish all responses we will endeavour to
publish those where we feel that the information disclosed is in the
public interest.  The Disclosure Log will be updated once responses have
been sent to the requester.  I have provided the relevant link below:-

[1]http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...

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

How to complain

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

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

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor
Direct Dial:  01661 868347
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I am not requesting an Internal review at this stage. I am seeking further information.

You will be aware that the IC has stated that; "However it should be noted that there is no exemption for embarrassment, only where there is a real risk
of such harm being caused could the exemption be engaged." http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Notice para f What is the likelihood of the prejudice being caused? "Deciding whether or not a particular disclosure would be likely to cause prejudice will often require the exercise of judgement. It will be necessary to judge, in other words, what may be the nature of the harm that would be caused and, also, the likelihood of that harm. While the “prejudice” that may
be caused by disclosure may not be substantial, nor should it be completely trivial. As for likelihood, while prejudice need not be certain, there must be a
significant risk rather than a remote possibility of prejudice."

NP have not explained why they believe releasing the requested information would “prejudice” nor the nature of the "harm" that would be caused. You also need to explain who will be harmed if the information were to be released. The IC makes it very clear that; "As for likelihood, while prejudice need not be certain, there must be a significant risk rather than a remote possibility of prejudice."

You also state in you reply that; "I have provided an explanation to this exemption below. Section 14 Vexatious Request Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the
previous request and the making of the current request.
To further aid and assist you, I have detailed where these questions are similar below. As requests 900/11 and 25/12 are currently subject to internal review, the exemption is therefore clearly applicable."

I note that you have not included any detail of the "identical or substantially similar" requests that you claim I have made. I am asking NP to supply this information. It should be placed on the recorded that NP have never supplied me with any of the requested information that I have asked for on the subject matter. Given the above it is misleading for them to claim that "Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person..." NP have not "complied" nor have they supplied me with any of the recorded information I have requested concerning amounts paid to this firm.

Once again I would ask you to supply evidence to show where and when you have "complied" with such requests.

I note that NP dealt with this request only after they were made aware that I had made a further complaint to the ICO due to further and unnecessary delays while dealing with my requests. I will be asking the ICO to look at this too.

Given the above NP can not regard this request as being "Vexatious" Request. I will of course be making a complaint to the ICO concerning this matter, but I will do so after I get your reply to the above and only after you whitewash my request for an Internal Review. I want to place on the record that I am NOT requesting an Internal Review at this stage.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12 - Samuel Phillips
Law Firm
Dear Mr McGartland

We are aware that there is no exemption for embarrassment.  Exemptions are
applied in line with the Act and where an exemption is engaged it is
explained why it is applicable.  I am unaware of any response given where
embarrassment is defined and/or engaged as an exemption.

In this case the commercial interest exemption was applied.  This
exemption is subject to a public interest test.  That is, Northumbria
Police can only withhold commercially sensitive information where the
public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest
in disclosing the information.  When engaging this exemption, a public
interest test must be carried out by the public authority.  In this case
this was carried out and explained in our response to you.  Should you
disagree with the public interest carried out, you may wish to request an
internal review.

To assist you regarding the other requests of a similar nature, I have
identified these requests below for your reference.

900/11        Q3
        For the past two year period, please supply all information you
hold concerning all/any business arrangements between Northumbria Police,
its officers, its Solicitors and or agents and also Samuel Phillips Law
Firm and or its solicitors."

025/12        Q1
        Please supply all information as to any payments made to Samuel
Phillips Law Firm by Northumbria Police for any purpose in the years
2007/2008, 2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12.

Should you have any further queries on this matter, the internal review
process remains open to you.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh

Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #108691 email]> on 14/04/2012 00:07 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12
- Samuel Phillips Law Firm [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    I am not requesting an Internal review at this stage. I am seeking
    further information.
   
    You will be aware that the IC has stated that; "However it should
    be noted that there is no exemption for embarrassment, only where
    there is a real risk
    of such harm being caused could the exemption be engaged."
   
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...
   
    Notice para f What is the likelihood of the prejudice being caused?
    "Deciding whether or not a particular disclosure would be likely to
    cause prejudice will often require the exercise of judgement. It
    will be necessary to judge, in other words, what may be the nature
    of the harm that would be caused and, also, the likelihood of that
    harm. While the “prejudice” that may
    be caused by disclosure may not be substantial, nor should it be
    completely trivial. As for likelihood, while prejudice need not be
    certain, there must be a
    significant risk rather than a remote possibility of prejudice."
   
    NP have not explained why they believe releasing the requested
    information would “prejudice” nor the nature of the "harm" that
    would be caused. You also need to explain who will be harmed if the
    information were to be released. The IC makes it very clear that;
    "As for likelihood, while prejudice need not be certain, there must
    be a significant risk rather than a remote possibility of
    prejudice."
   
    You also state in you reply that; "I have provided an explanation
    to this exemption below. Section 14 Vexatious Request Where a
    public authority has previously complied with a request for
    information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to
    comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request
    from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between
    compliance with the
    previous request and the making of the current request.
    To further aid and assist you, I have detailed where these
    questions are similar below. As requests 900/11 and 25/12 are
    currently subject to internal review, the exemption is therefore
    clearly applicable."
   
    I note that you have not included any detail of the "identical or
    substantially similar" requests that you claim I have made. I am
    asking NP to supply this information. It should be placed on the
    recorded that NP have never supplied me with any of the requested
    information that I have asked for on the subject matter. Given the
    above it is misleading for them to claim that "Where a public
    authority has previously complied with a request for information
    which was made by any person..." NP have not "complied" nor have
    they supplied me with any of the recorded information I have
    requested concerning amounts paid to this firm.
   
    Once again I would ask you to supply evidence to show where and
    when you have "complied" with such requests.
   
    I note that NP dealt with this request only after they were made
    aware that I had made a further complaint to the ICO due to further
    and unnecessary delays while dealing with my requests. I will be
    asking the ICO to look at this too.
   
    Given the above NP can not regard this request as being "Vexatious"
    Request. I will of course be making a complaint to the ICO
    concerning this matter, but I will do so after I get your reply to
    the above and only after you whitewash my request for an Internal
    Review. I want to place on the record that I am NOT requesting an
    Internal Review at this stage.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

You continue to fail to deal with my requests that relate to monies, public money, spent by Northumbria Police.

I am requesting an Internal Review of the entire request and am doing so on the grounds which I included within last above correspondence. I am making this clear at this point because I know NP will try to delay and continue with their silly games. NP, like others, must account for public funds. I believe there is a very clear conflict in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12 - Samuel Phillips
Law Firm

Dear Mr McGartland

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

We aim to provide a response to you within 20 working days of this
acknowledgement.
Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #108691 email]> on 17/04/2012 12:05 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Internal review of Freedom of Information request - How
many times have Northumbria Police instructed Samuel Phillips Law Firm and
or any of its Solicitors between February 2011 and February        2012

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    You continue to fail to deal with my requests that relate to
    monies, public money, spent by Northumbria Police.
   
    I am requesting an Internal Review of the entire request and am
    doing so on the grounds which I included within last above
    correspondence. I am making this clear at this point because I know
    NP will try to delay and continue with their silly games. NP, like
    others, must account for public funds. I believe there is a very
    clear conflict in this matter.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I would be grateful if you could update me on this request

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 266/12 - Samuel Phillips
Law Firm

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

Thank you for your email dated 17 April 2012 in which you requested a
review of the response to your request for access to certain information
which may be held by Northumbria Police.

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

You asked:

Please supply all recorded information concerning following;

1.        How many times, if any, have Northumbria Police instructed
Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors between February
2011 and February 2012.

2.        Have Northumbria Police entered into any type of written or
verbal contact/s and or agreement/s with Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or
any of its Solicitors.  If so, please supply full details.

3.        Please list all amounts paid, if any, to Samuel Phillips Law
Firm and or any of its Solicitors concerning any matters that relate to
the Raoul Moat case.

4.        Please detail reason/s for all/any payment/s regards 3 above.

Our response stated:

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

As advised earlier this request has been aggregated with your previous
request, FOI 25/12 - Samuel Philips Law Firm, due to the cost and time
implications as it refers to the same subject area (Samuel Philips Law
Firm).

Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with the Legal
Department of Northumbria Police.  I can confirm that the information you
have requested is held by Northumbria Police.

I have decided to disclose the located information to you as follows.    
   

We will not be supplying the information you have requested in parts 1, 3
& 4 of your request, and in doing so we will rely on Section 14 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.  You should therefore consider this a
refusal for those parts of your request.

I have provided an explanation to this exemption below.

Section 14 Vexatious Request

Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with
a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person
unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the
previous request and the making of the current request.

To further aid and assist you, I have detailed where these questions are
similar below.  As requests 900/11 and 25/12 are currently subject to
internal review, the exemption is therefore clearly applicable.

1.        It is noted that this request is substantially similar to
request 900/11 question 3.  That request is currently subject to an
internal review.

3.        It is noted that this request is substantially similar to
question 1 of 25/12.  That request is currently subject to an internal
review.

4.        It is noted that this request is substantially similar to
question 1 of 25/12.  That request is currently subject to an internal
review.

2.        Clarification was sought for this question, and you confirmed
you meant 'verbal contract/s', NOT 'verbal contact/s', therefore please
see the following.

        Northumbria Police have not entered into any written contracts or
agreements with Samuel Phillips Law Firm.  On those occasions where
Northumbria Police have instructed Samuel Phillips to undertake legal work
on our behalf they have done so on the basis of an agreed charging rate
which is commercially sensitive, therefore this information is exempt by
virtue of Section 43 (2) an explanation of this is provided below, and
they dealt with the file under the usual professional rules and
obligations which govern any Solicitor dealing with a privately funded
file on behalf of a client.  In that general sense therefore a verbal
contract has existed between Northumbria Police and Samuel Phillips Law
Firm for each individual case undertaken.

        Section 43 (2) Commercial Interests

        Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any
person (including the public authority holding it).

        This is a qualified class based exemption and requires a public
interest test to be applied.  I have set this out below.

        Public Interest Test

        Considerations For Disclosure:

        Accountability for Public funds
        The release of the information would demonstrate the openness of
the organisation to explain and account for monies spent on services.

        Public Debate
        The provision of services to the local community by the police
service is always the subject of public debate.  Any information which
would aid the accuracy of that debate would be of positive benefit to all
parties involved.

        Improper Actions of Public Officials
        Disclosure of the information would show the openness of the
processes by which such services are procured.

        Considerations Favouring Non Disclosure:

        Interests of Third Parties/Commercial Confidence
        Release of the information might jeopardise the interests of third
parties in relation to sensitive commercial information held in relation
to contractual, financial or business issues and to protect the commercial
interests of service providers.

        Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Force
        A disclosure which greatly affects the ability of a product
supplier to operate in a free market would have a knock on effect on the
effectiveness of the force to do business in the future.  Disclosures
under Freedom of Information which harm commercial partners will make it
more difficult to attract suitable suppliers in the future, as they avoid
that risk to their organisations.  This will mean that the numbers of
options to select from could be reduced which in turn could mean either
inferior products/service having to be selected or more expensive options
having to be chosen.

        Balancing Test

        Before deciding which of these arguments is most compelling a
balancing test needs to be completed.  In this case the right of the
public to know needs to be weighed against the damage caused to the
supplier and ultimately the authority itself.

        The accountability for public funds is a powerful argument.
 However, this is offset by the fact that the authority is already subject
to a financial audit and is therefore already held accountable for the
money that it spends.  This process will not be enhanced by a disclosure
under FOIA.

        When analysing the impact of commercial harm, the number of
competitors will always be a factor.  The fact that there are a number of
suppliers in the market place for a service does mean that there is clear
evidence that the preferred supplier process will always attract
competitive quotes.  This means that the public may get good value for
money, this is further guaranteed by the fact that the police service uses
tried and tested procurement processes, which are not enhanced by the
disclosure of this information.  To disclose any information regarding a
service providers tendering application may, in the future, discourage
that supplier from working with the Force, which may in turn be
detrimental to the procurement process and the community as a whole.
 Therefore on balance at this time, the public interest test does not
favour disclosure.

        You should consider this to be a refusal notice under section 17
of the Act for certain parts of your request outlined above.

Correspondence received from yourself following our response stated:

I am not requesting an Internal review at this stage. I am seeking further
information.

You will be aware that the IC has stated that; "However it should be noted
that there is no exemption for embarrassment, only where there is a real
risk of such harm being caused could the exemption be engaged."

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l... of
information/detailed
specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_5_v3_07_03_08.pdf

Notice para f What is the likelihood of the prejudice being caused?

"Deciding whether or not a particular disclosure would be likely to cause
prejudice will often require the exercise of judgement.  It will be
necessary to judge, in other words, what may be the nature of the harm
that would be caused and, also, the likelihood of that harm. While the
"prejudice" that may be caused by disclosure may not be substantial, nor
should it be completely trivial. As for likelihood, while prejudice need
not be certain, there must be a significant risk rather than a remote
possibility of prejudice.

NP have not explained why they believe releasing the requested information
would "prejudice" nor the nature of the "harm" that would be caused. You
also need to explain who will be harmed if the information were to be
released. The IC makes it very clear that; "As for likelihood, while
prejudice need not be certain, there mu s t be a significant risk rather
than a remote possibility of prejudice."

You also state in you reply that; "I have provided an explanation to this
exemption below. Section 14 Vexatious Request Where a public authority has
previously complied with a request for information which was made by any
person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or
substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable
interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the
making of the current request.

To further aid and assist you, I have detailed where these questions are
similar below. As requests 900/11 and 25/12 are currently subject to
internal review, the exemption is there fore clearly applicable."

I note that you have not included any detail of the "identical or
substantially similar" requests that you claim I have made. I am asking NP
to supply this information. It should be placed on the recorded that NP
have never supplied me with any of the requested information that I have
asked for on the subject matter. Given the above it is misleading for them
to claim that "Where a public authority has previously complied with a
request for information which was made by any person..." NP have not
"complied" nor have they supplied me with any of the recorded information
I have requested concerning amounts paid to this firm.

Once again I would ask you to supply evidence to show where and when you
have "complied" with such requests.

I note that NP dealt with this request only after they were made aware
that I had made a further complaint to the ICO due to further and
unnecessary delays while dealing with my requests. I will be asking the
ICO to look at this too.

Given the above NP can not regard this request as being ''Vexatious
Request. I will of course be making a complaint to the ICO concerning this
matter, but I will do so after I get your reply to the above and only
after you whitewash my request for an Internal Review. I want to place on
the record that I am NOT requesting an Internal Review at this stage.

Your request for review asked:

You continue to fail to deal with my requests that relate to monies,
public money, spent by Northumbria Police.

I am requesting an Internal Review of the entire request and am doing so
on the grounds which I included within last above correspondence. I am
making this clear at this point because I know NP will try to delay and
continue with their silly games. NP, like others, must account for public
funds. I believe there is a very clear conflict in this matter.
In response:

As you have stated you would like a review of the entire request, this
review will address each question in turn.

1.        Your question asked "How many times, if any, have Northumbria
Police instructed Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors
between February 2011 and February 2012." It was stated that this was
substantially similar to question 3 from request 900/11.  That question
asked "For the past two year period, please supply all information you
hold concerning all/any business arrangements between Northumbria Police,
its officers, its Solicitors and or agents and also Samuel Phillips Law
Firm and or its solicitors."

        This review has concluded that these two requests are
substantially similar and that a substantive response was given to 900/11.

2.        As no fixed date parameters were provided for this part of the
request, the review has assumed that the dates are as per question 1
(February 2011 and February 2012).  It is noted however that in future
where such parameters are not provided by the requestor they should be
clarified by the team dealing with the FOI request before proceeding with
any research.

        The Freedom of Information Act gives you the right to information
held by the Police Service, subject to the application of exemptions.

        The Act gives two qualified rights to the public - the right to be
told whether the information is held and the right to receive the
information.

        The Public Authority has the duty to confirm or deny whether the
information requested exists and the duty to communicate the information.

        On this occasion it has been concluded that the right to be told
whether the information is held has not been clearly stated and
subsequently the Force has failed in its duty to confirm or deny if the
information exists.

        It has been confirmed with the Force Legal Team that there is no
recorded information held regarding any verbal contracts or written
contracts put in place between the Force and Samuel Phillips Law Firm
between February 2011 and February 2012.  Whilst the exemption under
Section 43 of the Act was applied, this would only be applicable where
information is held.  However, it has been confirmed that no information
is held by the Force on this point and subsequently there is no
requirement to engage the exemption.

        It is worth noting however that if any information had been held,
the exemption would have been fully applicable.

        On this part of the request, the complaint is upheld.

3.        Your question asked "Please list all amounts paid, if any, to
Samuel Phillips Law Firm and or any of its Solicitors concerning any
matters that relate to the Raoul Moat case."  It was stated that this was
substantially similar to  question 1 of 25/12.  That question asked
"Please supply all information as to any payments made to Samuel Phillips
Law Firm by Northumbria Police for any purpose in the years 2007/2008,
2008/09, 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12."  That request has been subject to
a review and you have now re-submitted a refined request.  These requests
are substantially similar and the answers to your refined request
 (reference 402/12) will provide a suitable response to this question.
 There is therefore no requirement to seek that information for the
purposes of this review.

4.        Your question asked "Please detail reason/s for all/any
payment/s regards 3 above."  It was stated that this was substantially
similar to  question 1 of 25/12.  That question asked "Please supply all
information as to any payments made to Samuel Phillips Law Firm by
Northumbria Police for any purpose in the years 2007/2008, 2008/09,
2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12."  That request has been subject to a review
and you have now re-submitted a refined request.  These requests are
substantially similar and the answers to your refined request  (reference
402/12) will provide a suitable response to this question.  There is
therefore no requirement to seek that information for the purposes of this
review.

This concludes my internal review into your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  I believe that Northumbria Police have now
fulfilled our requirements as per your Freedom of Information request.  If
you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review then it remains
open to you to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at the
following address:

The Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

Hayley Morrison
Disclosure Manager
Legal Department
Northumbria Police
Direct Dial:  0191 2956940
Email:  hayley[email address]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Please will you explain the 3 month plus delay in dealing with this Internal review. You will be aware that you are required to deal with such reviews within 20 working days. Moreover, I understand the ICO have already warned Northumbria Police a number of times about delaying my requests.

Regards you comments concerning my making such requests in past, that is poppycock. It seems to me that Northumbria Police are concealing information that relates to public funds. You have not dealt with this request correctly and you are breaking the law by failing to release non-exempt recorded information. You are also lying about the history of these request (as you have done in past) to simply hide information.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I have this evening made a complaint to the ICO concerning NP's failing to deal with this request correctly (and within the law). I have also complained about the 3 month delay by Northumbria POlice in dealing with this internal review. There are many other requests that NP are delaying. I will be making complaints about those too.

I am also requesting that NP investigate this matter and the 3 month delay. Please accept this email as a complaint I'm sure corrupt Chris will fix (whitewash) that too) - he is an expert in that department. If only he was as good as investigating attempted murders (rather than covering them up).

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Northumbria Police Lies in the Martin McGartland attempted murder case and the State cover-up:
http://youtu.be/GGWMZcyv648

Northumbria Police

I will be out of the office starting 20/07/2012 and will not return until
01/08/2012.

During this time I am out of the office on Annual Leave. If your query is
urgent please contact Richard Heron, the Force Solicitor on 0191 295 6915.

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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