How much have the IOPC /IPCC spent on all external legal advice (for barristers / solicitors fees / costs) relating to Martin McGartland, his cases during the past 5 years?

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Independent Office for Police Conduct

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Independent Office for Police Conduct Nid oedd gan y wybodaeth y gofynnwyd amdani.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

05 April 2019

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct,

How much have IOPC / IPCC spent on all external legal advice (for barristers / solicitors fees / costs) relating to Martin McGartland, his cases during the past 5 years?

I would like the information broken down as follows;

1. Total amount spent between April 2014 to April 2015?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above period.

2. Total amount between April 2015 to April 2016?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above period.

3. Total amount between April 2016 to April 2017?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above period.

4. Total amount between April 2017 to April 2018?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above period.

5. Total amount between April 2018 to April 2019?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above period.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland
 
Thank you for your email to the IOPC requesting information. This request
is being considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).  We
will now consult with the relevant department to gather the response to
your request.
 
We propose to respond to you on or before the 8 May 2019 in line with the
timescales prescribed by the FOIA.
 
If you have any questions about this request please contact us. Please
remember to quote reference number 1007548 in any future correspondence
about this request.
 
Yours sincerely
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
M33 0BW
[1]www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: [2]@policeconduct
 
Find out how we handle your personal data [3]on our website
 
 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland

Your request for information below relates to data regarding your own cases, although you have cited the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) as the channel under which you are making the request. The FOIA is a public disclosure regime, which means information disclosed under it is thereafter deemed to be in the public domain and freely available to the public on request. Section 40(1) of the FOIA provides that the personal information of the person making the request is absolutely exempt from the general right of access. As confirmed by guidance from the Information Commissioner, requests for personal data of the requester should instead be dealt with under Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation 2016 (GDPR) known as the right of subject access.

Clearly the information you are seeking would fall within the category of personal data about you and should be considered under your right of access provided by Article 15 of the GDPR. We will however not correspond with you regarding your personal cases on a publically available website such as What Do they Know.

To enable us to progress this request, please could you confirm that you wish to proceed with this request under Article 15 of the GDPR and if so provide a private correspondence address.

On receipt of an appropriate way to privately correspond with you about your personal cases, we will be happy to progress your request.

Yours sincerely

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW

www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

13 April 2019

Dear !Request Info,

Yes . Please deal with this request which relates to public funds.... you will be aware (because you read my other request - I would refer you to those) that other public authorities have answered the same (or similar) requests without any such issues.

The request, which relates to public funds spent by IOPC/IPCC, is a FOI request under FOIA 2000. The IOPC/IPCC would not disclose details to me relating to such information under DPA. In fact, and as you are aware, I have made previous SAR's (for everything) and that type of information has never been disclosed.

On a separate note, and as you have brought up the issue, I would be happy for you to deal with this request,(as SAR, under DPA 2018. And I would like you to accept it as such. I consent to you forwarding the reply for that SAR to my personal email address (which you already have). However, I still require you to deal with this FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your email. As you have stipulated that you would like a response under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), we will progress it as such.

We propose to respond to you on or before the 15 May 2019 in line with the timescales prescribed by the FOIA.

If you have any questions about this request please contact us. Please remember to quote reference number 1007548 in any future correspondence about this matter. We will correspond with you under separate cover regarding your subject access request.

Yours sincerely

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW

www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Note to Readers:

IOPC is on life support...... the Corrupt IOPC/IPCC is in the News AGAIN:

Wrexham MP Ian Lucas accuses IOPC/IPCC of being involved in a 'systematic cover up' concerning the case of Nicholas Churton who was murdered at his home in 2017 by Jordan Davidson, who had previous convictions and was out on licence. Mr Lucas said; "There's been a systematic cover up involving North Wales Police, the probation service, the Community Rehabilitation Company, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office of Police Conduct." REad the news reports in full, here (by clicking on page links below):

Police misled me over Nicholas Churton murder, says MP; https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politi...

MP claims ‘systematic cover-up’ involving North Wales Police, probation service, CRC, IPCC and IOPC over Nicolas Churton murder : http://www.wrexham.com/news/mp-claims-sy...

IN Full - News Reports:

MP claims ‘systematic cover-up’ involving North Wales Police, probation service, CRC, IPCC and IOPC over Nicolas Churton murder

Published: Friday, Apr 12th, 2019

Wrexham’s MP has spoken in Parliament about ‘grave errors’ made before the brutal murder of a Wrexham resident – while heavily criticising subsequent attempts by the authorities to establish what went wrong.

Ian Lucas led an adjournment debate in the main Commons chamber yesterday on ‘police complaints, accountability and the case of Nicholas Churton’.

Mr Churton was murdered in his Wrexham home in March 2017 by a dangerous offender, Jordan Davidson, who was on licence from prison at the time. Davidson had been arrested and taken into custody four days before the murder for possession of a knife, only to be released rather than being sent back to prison. Mr Lucas read out an account of a second threat to life in Wrexham town centre when Davidson pulled a machete on a man trying to intervene on a robbery in the period after he had murdered Mr Churton.

Mr Lucas has spent two years trying to find out why Davidson was freed to murder Mr Churton, and commit a series of other serious offences, but says several key questions remain unanswered.

In yesterday’s speech he praised the ‘commendable bravery’ of the officers who arrested Davidson. However, he was heavily critical of North Wales Police, the probation service and the Independent Office of Police Conduct (IOPC) over their failure to give him answers in relation to the case.

Speaking in the Chamber, Mr Lucas said: “Davidson is responsible for this horrific crime and for other attacks for which he is now serving a 30-year prison sentence. However, the events leading to those crimes revealed grave errors by the police and by the probation services in Wrexham and North Wales.”

Mr Lucas added: “I have secured knowledge of the detail of those errors only with the assistance of Jez Hemming of the Daily Post newspaper in north Wales. For the bulk of this case, I have secured no co-operation whatever from North Wales police.

“Indeed, I now believe that I, along with the public, was misled deliberately about the facts of the case to conceal those errors, and that there has been a systematic cover-up involving North Wales police, the probation service, the community rehabilitation company, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office for Police Conduct.”

Davidson was known to Mr Churton and had approached him in the days before the murder.

An IOPC investigation into Mr Churton’s contact with the police was launched in the days following his death – yet Mr Lucas was not informed of this important development. It is IOPC protocol for local MPs to be told.

Mr Lucas contacted North Wales Police later that year after learning of Davidson’s arrest and release for possession of an offensive weapon, days before the murder. But the then Chief Constable, Mark Polin, said he could not comment because the IOPC was investigating ‘all contact’ the police had with Davidson prior to Mr Churton’s death. Mr Lucas says this was, in fact, not true as the IOPC was only investigating police contact with Mr Churton, not the contact with Davidson.

Following pressure from Mr Lucas, a second IOPC investigation was opened – this time focusing on police contact with Davidson – but it only began in April 2018, more than a year on from the crime. The first IOPC investigation has finished, resulting in misconduct cases for two officers, but the second inquiry is ongoing.

Mr Lucas this week wrote to North Wales Police & Crime Commissioner Arfon Jones to ask him to look into the statements made to him by Mr Polin, who has since left the force.

Mr Lucas posed several questions in the House of Commons yesterday to the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd):
– Why did North Wales police and the IPCC fail to tell me of a police conduct inquiry involving a murder and additional serious assaults in the middle of my constituency?
– Secondly, who decided to exclude the police decision to release Davidson on bail after his arrest for possession of an offensive weapon from the terms of reference of the IPCC inquiry, and why was that done?
– Thirdly, why did the then chief constable of North Wales, Mark Polin, tell me that there was an inquiry into Davidson’s release when there was not?
– Fourthly, was the North Wales police and crime commissioner notified of the inquiry by the IPCC in 2017, and of its terms of reference? Is there an obligation to notify PCCs of such inquiries? If a notification was made in this case, when was it made?
-Fifthly, was the family of Nicholas Churton notified of the inquiry, and the fact of the release of Davidson four days before his murder?
– Sixthly, why did the probation service and the CRC fail to highlight the fact that the release of Davidson was not included in the IPCC inquiry? Should they have done so?

Mr Lucas added: “It is now over two years since Nicholas Churton was brutally murdered. We need an independent investigation into how this happened. I have no confidence in the various bodies and organisations that I have referred to because none of them and none of the systems worked to reveal the errors in this case, which had catastrophic consequences. What we need above all is some transparency ​and honesty from the organisations involved. The family of Nicholas Churton, with whom I have been working, deserve that honesty.”

The Minister replied, “I know the hon. Gentleman to be a man of common sense and experience in this place. When I hear him articulate his feeling that he has been personally misled and talk about a systematic cover-up, I know that he will not be using that language lightly. I take that seriously and congratulate him on his persistence and his campaign on this.”

“I heard clearly the hon. Gentleman’s frustration about his engagement with the police and the system and the degree to which he feels misled—a powerful word in this context. I understand that he has been in correspondence with and met senior members of North Wales police to discuss its organisational learning, its response to date and intended actions. If he feels that contact has not been substantive or that there are issues that continue to need to be addressed, he and I should discuss that. I can certainly help him to make that point directly to North Wales police’s leadership.”

Mr Lucas noted “It is fair to say that North Wales police now has a new chief constable and that this case relates to the previous regime, so to speak” with the Minister replying “…under new leadership, the engagement with the ​hon. Gentleman is more forthcoming, and I welcome that.”

After a lengthy reply (here) from the Minister Mr Lucas said, “My key concern is that Davidson’s release from custody was not made subject to IPCC investigation by North Wales police or by the IPCC, and no one outside the force knew of that fact. It was only when I highlighted it that the investigation commenced. My concern is that the systems are still not in place to make sure it cannot happen again.”

The Minister said: “I understand that message very clearly, and it will be heard by the IOPC. I undertake to make sure that the IOPC has absorbed the message. My understanding is that the first investigation looked at the police’s dealings and contact with Nicholas Churton and the second is looking specifically at their contact and dealings with Jordan Davidson, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. Through the mechanism of this debate and the follow-up, I undertake to make sure that the message is clearly understood by the IOPC as it finalises its work for publication, hopefully this summer.”

Speaking outside the chamber, Mr Lucas said: “This case raises serious concerns about the criminal justice system and the safety of my constituents. It is why I have been so determined to find out what went wrong, yet I have been met with a great many obstacles which have been a cause of huge concern to me. The family of Mr Churton also deserve answers but, sadly, we are still waiting more than two years on from this terrible crime.”

Top picture: Ian Lucas MP speaking yesterday during the adjournment debate.

Police misled me over Nicholas Churton murder, says MP

11 April 2019

Wrexham MP Ian Lucas has said he was "misled deliberately" by police over a murder case.

Nicholas Churton was killed with a machete and hammer at his home in 2017 by Jordan Davidson, who had previous convictions and was out on licence.

Mr Lucas said he asked police why he was released from police custody four days before the murder and was wrongly told this was subject to an inquiry.

A minister told MPs there was "clear evidence of failure" over the case.

Davidson, from Wrexham, is serving a life sentence with a minimum of 30 years.

Killer 'should have been in prison'
Police 'made errors' before man's murder
Frustration over murder investigations
Despite his long list of previous convictions he was bailed after being arrested for possession of a knife days before killing 67-year-old disabled man Mr Churton in his Wrexham flat.

Mr Lucas told the Commons on Thursday "events leading to those crimes, revealed grave errors by the police and by the probation services in Wrexham and north Wales".

"There was no inquiry into the circumstances of Davidson's release from custody," he said.

"In fact, the IOPC [Independent Office for Police Conduct], following my questioning and my enquiries, commenced an inquiry into this release in April 2018, an inquiry which still has yet to conclude."

He said: "There's been a systematic cover up involving North Wales Police, the probation service, the Community Rehabilitation Company, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Independent Office of Police Conduct."

In response, Home Office Minister Nick Hurd said there was "clear evidence of failure" over the handling of the case.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

12 May 2019

Dear IOPC/IPCC,

Please send your reply to this FOI (which I made here - on this WDTK site) . You have sent a reply to my personal email address. PLEASE DO NOT reply to my personal email address to FOI requests that have been made by me from WDTK page.

II trust that you will comply with the law (FOIA) and that you will now reply to above request and do so without further delay.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear !Request Info,

As you stated, as above, in your reply to me which included; "We propose to respond to you on or before the 8 May 2019 in line with the timescales prescribed by the FOIA."

Please reply without further delay.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland

As per our email of 18 May 2018, the statutory deadline for responding to this request is 15 May 2019, that being twenty working days from the date that we received your clarification.

Yours sincerely

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW

www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

14 May 2019

Dear !Request Info,

Please STOP it ..... I'm getting all confused. You say: "As per our email of 18 May 2018, the statutory deadline for responding to this request is 15 May 2019, that being twenty working days from the date that we received your clarification." It is only the 14 May 2019..... how is that possible (even for IPCC part 2?

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

Please find attached our response to your request for information.

Yours sincerely

Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW

www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

16 May 2019

Dear Sir / Madam,

The following is a request which I made to Bedfordshire Police, which they answered in full, concerning amounts spent on legal costs relating to 'Martin McGarftland'. I have copied and pasted the reply (and the link) below fyi;

"Our Ref: FOI2019/02534

By email only to: [email address]

Dear Martin McGartland

REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 Ref No: FOI2019/02534

I write in connection with your request for information received on 10th April. I note you seek access to the following information:

How much has CC Jon Boutcher / his force (Including Bedfordshire / Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire) rate payer spent on all external legal advice (for barristers / solicitors fees) relating to Martin McGartland, his case/s, the Jon Boutcher review of his attempted murder (including report / findings). during the past 2 years?

I would like the information broken down as follows;

1. Total amount?
2 A breakdown of each amount, reason for each payment for above period.

I am required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) to handle all requests in a manner that is blind to the identity of the requestor. Any information released in response to a request is regarded as being published and therefore, in the public domain without caveat.

Following enquiries within the Force please see our response below.

1. £480.00 plus VAT at 20%
2. The reason for the payment was recorded as legal advice.

The numerical data presented in this response is an un-audited snapshot of un-published data sourced from "live" systems and is subject to the interpretation of the original request by the individual extracting the data.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact me quoting the above reference number.

Yours sincerely
Karen Kennedy
Information Rights...." Link to reply (and request) can be found here; https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...

So could you explain why the IOPC/IPCC are dealing with such h requests differently?

I note what you have said regards S.40 (personal information) etc (and would point you to above), You also refer to my having made a SAR for this same information, However, that-as you well know- is Not true/. The IOPC/IPCC (because they are covering up above info) circumvented that SAR. For the record.... the reply by IOPC/IPCC for that same information (legal costs spent regards me) was that they did not hold that information ... U have written back on that matter.

Not withstanding the above (and given the request relates to public / taxpayer funds) and should be disclosed. I am happy to give my consent with regards to you (as head of your dept), IOPC/IPCC as regards to this request. I am consenting (under FOIA... S.40 etc etc) to you disclosing information that you hold, that which relates to me, this request. I trust that this will be acceptable. You have also already confirmed, in your attached letter, that you, IOPC/IPCC are satisfied that I am 'Martin McGartland'

I look forward to hearing from you. BY The Way..... I am not requesting a review at this stage..... just supplying above to assist.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

04 June 2019

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct, / IPCC

Would you please let me have a reply to my 16 May 2019 message/email (as below).

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

16 May 2019

Dear Sir / Madam,

The following is a request which I made to Bedfordshire Police, which they answered in full, concerning amounts spent on legal costs relating to 'Martin McGarftland'. I have copied and pasted the reply (and the link) below fyi;

"Our Ref: FOI2019/02534

By email only to: [email address]

Dear Martin McGartland

REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 Ref No: FOI2019/02534

I write in connection with your request for information received on 10th April. I note you seek access to the following information:

How much has CC Jon Boutcher / his force (Including Bedfordshire / Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire) rate payer spent on all external legal advice (for barristers / solicitors fees) relating to Martin McGartland, his case/s, the Jon Boutcher review of his attempted murder (including report / findings). during the past 2 years?

I would like the information broken down as follows;

1. Total amount?
2 A breakdown of each amount, reason for each payment for above period.

I am required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) to handle all requests in a manner that is blind to the identity of the requestor. Any information released in response to a request is regarded as being published and therefore, in the public domain without caveat.

Following enquiries within the Force please see our response below.

1. £480.00 plus VAT at 20%
2. The reason for the payment was recorded as legal advice.

The numerical data presented in this response is an un-audited snapshot of un-published data sourced from "live" systems and is subject to the interpretation of the original request by the individual extracting the data.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact me quoting the above reference number.

Yours sincerely
Karen Kennedy
Information Rights...." Link to reply (and request) can be found here; https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5...

So could you explain why the IOPC/IPCC are dealing with such h requests differently?

I note what you have said regards S.40 (personal information) etc (and would point you to above), You also refer to my having made a SAR for this same information, However, that-as you well know- is Not true/. The IOPC/IPCC (because they are covering up above info) circumvented that SAR. For the record.... the reply by IOPC/IPCC for that same information (legal costs spent regards me) was that they did not hold that information ... U have written back on that matter.

Not withstanding the above (and given the request relates to public / taxpayer funds) and should be disclosed. I am happy to give my consent with regards to you (as head of your dept), IOPC/IPCC as regards to this request. I am consenting (under FOIA... S.40 etc etc) to you disclosing information that you hold, that which relates to me, this request. I trust that this will be acceptable. You have also already confirmed, in your attached letter, that you, IOPC/IPCC are satisfied that I am 'Martin McGartland'

I look forward to hearing from you. BY The Way..... I am not requesting a review at this stage..... just supplying above to assist.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland

We have no further comment to make regarding our original FOIA decision. As explained to you on several occasions we will not provide information regarding personal cases under the FOIA regime.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

'Martin McGartland

07 June 2019

Dear !Request Info,

More IOPC/IPCC cover ups ......

I have reason to believe that the IOPC/IPCC may have spent (wasted) tens of thousands of pounds of public / taxpayers money on legal advice (easy come, easy go) during the past 13 years c- and in connection with Martin McGartland, his IOPC/IPCC cases.

And that it has been spent to cover up the cover ups, corruption .... to protect corrupt IOPC/IPCC staff and very serious failures.... (who in-turn have been protecting corrupt police officers) in the Martin McGartland cases,

It is easy to see why the Corrupt IOPC/IPCC (which is on Life Support) will not answer questions about public monies they have spent (wasted in this case). While, as above shows, other public authorities have done so without any difficulty,

#MuchtoHide-EvenMoretoCoverUp

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

More IOPC/IPCC cover ups ......

I have reason to believe that the IOPC/IPCC may have spent (wasted) tens of thousands of pounds of public / taxpayers money on legal advice (easy come, easy go) during the past 13 years c- and in connection with Martin McGartland, his IOPC/IPCC cases.

And that it has been spent to cover up the cover ups, corruption .... to protect corrupt IOPC/IPCC staff and very serious failures.... (who in-turn have been protecting corrupt police officers) in the Martin McGartland cases,

It is easy to see why the Corrupt IOPC/IPCC (which is on Life Support) will not answer questions about public monies they have spent (wasted in this case). While, as above shows, other public authorities have done so without any difficulty,

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Martin McGartland

08 June 2019

Dear Gemma Thomas,

Thank you for the latest reply.

On the 14 May 2019 and in reply to this request you, IOPC/IPCC wrote to me as follows;

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your information request that was clarified on 13 April 2019. We have
considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) in line
with your express wishes, and this letter sets out our response.

Your request is as follows:

“How much have IOPC / IPCC spent on all external legal advice (for barristers /
solicitors fees / costs) relating to Martin McGartland, his cases during the past 5
years?

I would like the information broken down as follows;

1. Total amount spent between April 2014 to April 2015?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above
period.

2. Total amount between April 2015 to April 2016?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above
period.

3. Total amount between April 2016 to April 2017?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above
period.

4. Total amount between April 2017 to April 2018?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above
period.

5. Total amount between April 2018 to April 2019?
(a) Please also supply breakdown of each amount, reason for payment for above
period.”

We explained in our email of 12 May that the appropriate channel to seek such information was
via your subject access rights under Article 15 of the GDPR.

In your correspondence of 13 May however you insisted that your request was also considered
under the terms of the FOIA.

To determine our approach to this request we have had to consider whether the information
constitutes personal data; and if so whether it is the personal data of you as the requester, or of
another individual.

We have noted your comments that the information relates to public funds, hence your use of
the FOIA to request it. However we disagree and in considering the context of the information
asked for, we have decided that it actual y constitutes personal data because even the act of
confirming or denying whether any relevant information was held would reveal to ‘the world at
large’:

 whether or not an individual named Martin McGartland had made complaints about the
police that had involved the IOPC; and
 whether or not external legal advice had been taken in respect of any of that individual’s
cases.

We are satisfied therefore that your request clearly asks for information that constitutes personal
data, which could not be disclosed if this would breach any of the data protection principles.

If we were to receive this request from any member of the public our stance would be to neither
confirm nor deny that any relevant information is held by virtue of section 40(5)(b)(i) to avoid
disclosing personal data about another individual. We consider such disclosure would breach
Article 5(a) of the GDPR that requires personal data processing to be lawful and fair. There are
no lawful bases prescribed by Article 6 of the GDPR that would support disclosure and release
could result in unwarranted intrusion of privacy meaning it would be inherently unfair.

However in this case you seem to be using the FOIA to make a request for your own personal
data, as we are reasonably assured that you are the individual referred to in the request. Such
information is not disclosable by virtue of an exemption at section 40(1) which states that a
public authority should not disclose information under the FOIA if it is the personal data of the
requester.

Guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office states that, “You should only use [this]
exemption if the identity of the requester is clear and you can confirm that the information is their
personal data. If there is any doubt about the identity of the requester, you should deal with it as
a request for someone else’s data.”

In this case we are satisfied that you are Martin McGartland and that you are seeking
information about your own cases. Consequently we have decided that the exemption under
section 40(1) is engaged and are refusing the request on this basis.

We have instead directed you to request information under Article 15(1) of the GDPR
and have corresponded with you under separate cover regarding this matter.

This concludes our consideration of your request under the FOIA.

If you have any questions about this request please contact us. Please remember to
quote reference number 1007548 in any future correspondence about this matter.

If you are not satisfied with this response you may request an internal review by an
independent internal reviewer, who has had no involvement in dealing with your
request. If you wish to complain about any aspect of this decision, please provide
your representations and grounds for complaint to the following address: ......"

And on 5th June 2019 you wrote to me and stated; "We have no further comment to make regarding our original FOIA decision. As explained to you on several occasions we will not provide information regarding personal cases under the FOIA regime."

As a result to your above comments, correspondence to me regards this (the above) FOI request, And given you have confirmed / stated within you r above 14 May 2019, which I rely on in full regards this matter, that;
"In this case we are satisfied that you are Martin McGartland and that you are seeking information about your own cases. Consequently we have decided that the exemption under section 40(1) is engaged and are refusing the request on this basis. "

Thank you for confirming that you confirming that; "are satisfied that you are Martin McGartland and that you are seeking information about your own cases" As a result, I - as Martin McGartland - am hereby giving you my full (total) consent for you to disclose information which relates to me, the above FOI request ((and this request only). And I am also consenting for you to disclose the requested information ;to the wider word'. I am also seeking your advice and assistance (under section 16 of FOIA) which provides; "“It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.”

The advice and assistance I am requesting from IOPC/IPCC with regards to this matter relates to;

A: Their referring and taking into account the below First-Tier Tribunal appeal decision - which is relevant to this request - with a view of either confirm or deny if the requested information is held by them. Further to the decision in the Upper Tribunal in IC v Malnick and ACOBA (GIA/447/2017) the Tribunal has no power to remit the matter to the Commissioner for . And in light of that decision (as included within below page linked decision) I am requesting IOPC/IPCC advice and assistance (including that they confirm or deny whether the requested information is held by them) and do so within the scope of this request / FOIA (including under r section 16 of FOIA). And if the IOPC/IPCC do hold the any such information relating to this request, That they either disclose it or issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 FOIA.

B: Dealing with my (above( consent so that the (as well as A above) can comply with its legal obligations - in l aw - and under FOIA 2000 and deal correctly with my about request for that (and in doing so the IOPC/IPCC should take account of below appeal decision) with a view to disclosing the information under the FOIA and also via this, the WDTK Platform.

The IOPC/IPCC have delayed this request for far too long. And they are not dealing with me, my request correctly within FOIA. I trust that they will now comply, cease the delays and deal with this request correctly and within the FOIA .

I also rely (as well as the decision in full) on the following conclusion of the First-tier Tribunal:
70. In conclusion, the Tribunal unanimously found that the Met Police had been incorrect in
relying on section 40(5)(b)(i) and refusing to confirm or deny whether the requested
information was held. So to do would not have been a breach of DPP1 for the reasons
given above. In the Tribunal’s view there had been a breach by the Met Police of their
section 16 FOIA duty to advise and assist.
71. The Commissioner’s Decision Notice had therefore in turn been incorrect in law.
72. Futher to the decision in the Upper Tribunal in IC v Malnick and ACOBA
(GIA/447/2017) the Tribunal has no power to remit the matter to the Commissioner for
her to issue a second decision on the same issue. This means that, in light of its decision
above, it must order the Met Police to confirm or deny whether it holds information
within the scope of the request and then, if it holds any such information, either to
disclose it or to issue a refusal notice in accordance with section 17 FOIA.
73. The Tribunal substitutes a Decision Notice in this matter ordering the Met Police to so
confirm or deny within 28 days of this Decision. "

As well as the above, I also rely of the following First-tier Tribunal (Appeal Reference_ EA/2018/0071, decision in FULL as well as the cases referred to within that decision, Fyi - and to assist you: link to decision here ;
https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/sites/de...

I look forward to hearing from you concerning this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your email. We will be conducting an internal review of our original FOIA response and expect to provide you with our findings on or before 5 July 2019.

If you have any further queries regarding this matter, please contact us quoting reference number IR1007548.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear !Request Info,

Thank you for that.

Also, please note the following correction due to type regards 'word' (which should have read 'world', as below;

".... As a result, I - as Martin McGartland - am hereby giving you my full (total) consent for you to disclose information which relates to me, the above FOI request (and this request only). And I am also consenting for you to disclose the requested information; to the wider word (WORLD)."

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

Please find attached our decision following our Internal Review of your request for information.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Atodiad

 
Dear Mr McGartland
 
Please find attached our decision following our Internal Review of your
request for information.
 
Yours sincerely
 
FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
[1]www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling
complaints in our magazine FOCUS
 
 
 
 
 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

IOPC / IPCC Covering up for (and protecting) the police in the Martin McGartland case....

Private Eye(Issue no 1500)12 July – 25 July 2019

Police Conduct

Summary injustice

So much for openness and transparency at the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). It has been accused of a cover-up after seeking to impose an extraordinary non-disclosure agreement before a complainant could read even a summary of the investigation report into allegations he had made of police wrongdoing.

Martin McGartland has also been told he cannot keep a copy of the report, can only view it under supervision, and must hand over his mobile or any recording device before seeing it. Further, if he wants to get legal advice, his lawyers will have to sign a separate
secrecy order with the IOPC.

McGartland, as regular Eye readers will recall, is no ordinary complainant. The former undercover agent was shot at close range by the IRA in 1999 in Tyneside, where he was living under a false identity, after his cover was blown by Northumbria Police. Adding insult to life-changing injury, the force’s initial press briefing wrongly suggested the shooting was linked to the criminal underworld. McGartland has been involved in some kind of litigation or complaint process ever since – against both police and, subsequently, his former MI5 and Special branch handlers when they stopped funding his medical and psychiatric treatment. (eyes passim)

Having safely moved to another area, McGartland and his partner were terrified that they were facing another IRA revenge attack when they let their dog out late one night
only to be seized by balaclava-wearing men in black.

His partner’s screams drew neighbours into the street; and the “raiders” turned out to be police officers arresting the couple on suspicion of drug dealing and money laundering. Their house was turned upside down and their computers, phones and documents confiscated for forensic examination. Held for nearly 24hours, they were finally released on bail. It was several months before the couple had their possessions returned and were told there would be no further action.

It transpired that a family who had rented a house McGartland had bought with his criminal injuries compensation money as a holiday and rental property
- which he says both Special Branch and MI5 knew about - had indeed been involved in drug dealing. But, as McGartland says, it would have been easy for the police to see from correspondence and the couple’s bank records that their only recent contact with the family had been to chase up unpaid rent.

The couple launched a series of complaints against the police. These included unlawful arrest; failing to immediately identify themselves as police officers; using excessive force(McGartland’s partner suffered trauma and severe bruising to her arms and wrist); using balaclavas when dealing with a known traumatised IRA victim; obtaining a search warrant without telling the magistrate who the couple really were and that they were involved in ongoing litigation against MI5 and the Home office; and confiscating legally privileged information.

Initially the force cleared itself of blame. The couple’s appeal to the then Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) was upheld, and was then taken over by the IOPC. It has apparently produced a detailed 300-page report, but is only prepared to offer McGartland and his partner a summary to view. All McGartland has been told is that just three of his complaints have been upheld: excessive force used against his partner; failure to properly handle an “exhibit” taken from their home; and wearing balaclavas.

The couple have no idea why the bulk of their complaints have been dismissed, and are even more mystified why, in the interest of open justice and their rights to a full and fair investigation, McGartland cannot know the full reasons. So the Eye asked the IOPC. It said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the specific case. However, a statement said that while its general position is to provide complainants with as much information as possible, “for reasons, including concerns about the welfare and safety of individuals, it’s not always possible to share all of the evidence gathered in an investigation”.

It went on: “In these circumstances we may make arrangements with a view to mitigating risks to enable the disclosure of as much information as possible. Such arrangements might include the redaction of material, the preparation of a summary, inspection and in certain circumstances, confidentiality agreements”.

A recent appeal Court ruling in an unrelated case said that “the presumption of openness applies in favour of disclosure… and any non-disclosure must be necessary because there is a real risk of the disclosure causing a significant adverse effect”.

As a leading QC told the Eye: “If the IOPC believe they have a sound legal justification for this decision they should explain it publicly and defend it rather than seek to impose what are frankly unenforceable obligations of secrecy on the complainant”.

It looks like Martin McGartland is heading back to the courts once again.

This Private Eye story can be found at the following page link: https://www.scribd.com/document/41645328...