Jon Boutcher Review of Martin McGartland attempted murder (Northumbria Police 'Investigation') all payments paid by Northumbria Police

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Martin McGartland

12 February 2019

Dear Bedfordshire Police,

Under the FOIA 2000 I am requesting;

1. A detailed breakdown of all amounts claimed by Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire force/s concerning their, the Jon Boutcher Review of the Martin McGartland attempted murder (Northumbria Police 'Investigation').

This request is for;

a, Total amount paid by Northumbria Police (NP) todate.
b, Breakdown of all amounts claimed from, paid by NP todate (including details/reasons for all payments etc).

I understand that the Boutcher Review of the NP 'investigation' has identified very serious gross as well as criminal conduct by NP officers (and others) who were involved in the Martin McGartland NP 'investigation'. The police (Including Jon Boutcher) are required by law to challenge, report and investigate such matters. Under the FOIA I would also link to know;

2. What action, if any, has Jon Boutcher and or his force / officers taken as result of their findings of their review?

3. Regards 2 above, has Jon Boutcher reported NP, its officers, others to CPS, DPP, IOPC/IPCC or any other police force. If not, why not?
- Note to reader: ACC Paul Fullwood and Jon Boutcher assured and promised Martin McGartland that action would be taken against anyone (no matter who) and without fear or favour where misconduct / criminal has been identified.

4. Regards above, has Jon Boutcher, his force / officers began any type of investigation/s (including criminal) into NP, its officers (past and present) and or any others concerning review findings?

5. Jon Boutcher (as well as his number 2 - ACC Paul Fullwood) promised that they would disclose a copy of their review findings / report to Martin McGartland. Despite assuring Martin McGartland of same on many occasions and making same promises the report continues to be suppressed, covered up. What is the reason why Jon Boutcher (and ACC Fullwood) has broken his promises and why is he not disclosing his report, findings [as he gave his word he would do] to Martin McGartland?

I would hope that Jon Boutcher would be completely open and transparent when dealing with this matter, this FOI request.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

22 February 2019

Dear Bedfordshire Police,

Would you please confirm that you are dealing with my 12 February 2019 request (as above).

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

no-reply@bch.ecase.gsi.gov.uk on behalf of FOI Team, Bedfordshire Police

Our ref: FOI2019/00985

Dear Martin McGartland,

Thank you for your request for information which was received on 13th
February. Your request is being considered under the terms of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.

The Act requires that a response must be given promptly, and in any event
within 20 working days. We will therefore reply at the latest by 13th
March.

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,
Gary Maxey

Your ref: FOI2019/00985

Dear Sir,

Thank you for that.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

06 March 2019

Dear Bedfordshire Police,

This request is due to be answered on / or before 12 March 2019. Please ensure that the reply is sent to this (what do they know) page and NOT to my personal email address/account.

I request this because ACC Paul Fullwood included the following in an email he sent to me dated 01 March 2019; "I have asked the Data Protection team to contact me to discuss appropriate disclosure and communication channels." This FOI request must be answered as above. My outstanding SAR, of course, CAN be sent to my personal email address. I am not happy that ACC Fullwood is becoming involved with my requests and he, nor any other person should interfere with my information request (not least because of a conflict interest on his / CC Jon Boutcher's part ) so far as their involvement in above matters / in my cases is concerned. It was also CC Boutcher / ACC Paul Fullwood who took the decision to refer my request (made directly to them as 'business as normal') to your information unit for it to be dealt with under DPA, as a SAR.

I look forward to your reply concerning this FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Freedom of Information, Bedfordshire Police

Dear Mr McGartland,

I can confirm we have your what do they know email address listed on your request.

Kind Regards

Geneen Bill
Information Rights
Bedfordshire Police

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Corrupt Northumbria Police (and its useless and also Corrupt Crime Department) in the news again:
"Police failings shock: Blunders see gang accused of trafficking and raping girls walk free
Northumbria Police's Operation Optic, an investigation into the sexual abuse and exploitation of vulnerable girls, has ended in embarrassing failure" Link to story; https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nor...

And yet Dame Vera Baird, the queen of self promotion and photo opportunities, is no where to be seen ...

The Story Text:

Police failings shock: Blunders see gang accused of trafficking and raping girls walk free
Northumbria Police's Operation Optic, an investigation into the sexual abuse and exploitation of vulnerable girls, has ended in embarrassing failure

Evening Chronicle - By Rob Kennedy,
18:00, 7 MAR 2019

Police failings have led to the dramatic collapse of a series of trials against a group of men accused of trafficking, grooming and raping girls in Newcastle.

A number of people were charged with extremely serious offences as part of Northumbria Police's Operation Optic, which involved allegations of vulnerable girls being sexually exploited and abused.

Reporting restrictions have meant we were unable to report anything about the cases until a series of three trials were complete.

The first trial has been taking place at Newcastle Crown Court since January but, we can now reveal, has been beset with problems and five separate juries have been sworn in to try the case.

However, it has now emerged that police failings on how evidence was recorded, secured and disclosed to defence teams left prosecutors with no alternative but to drop the case against all defendants.

As a result, all of those who were standing trial or were due to stand trial, have been acquitted of all charges and walked free.

It is estimated the police blunders will have cost taxpayers huge sums after the four-year investigation ended in embarrassing failure.

Police said they have apologised to the complainants in the case and are carrying out a review.

Chief Superintendent Scott Hall, head of Northumbria Police’s safeguarding department, said: “First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the bravery of the victims in these cases and we remain committed to ensuring they receive any support they may require.

"We have visited each to apologise for police failings which resulted in the cases not going ahead at court.

"These centred around how some evidence had been secured without meeting strict guidelines governing investigations.

"We will now conduct a review to understand how the failings occurred and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment any further at this stage.”

It is understood that, independent of the wider review, Northumbria Police's professional standards department are conducting an investigation and if any misconduct issues are identified as a result, these will be addressed appropriately.

Operation Optic came about as a result of Operation Sanctuary, for which seventeen men and one woman were jailed in 2017 for the sexual abuse and exploitation of girls and young women in Newcastle.

The case against the men who had been on trial since January collapsed on Monday but we had to wait until the charges were dropped against the other defendants before we could report what had happened.

On Monday, trial judge Robert Adams told jurors: "There has been a significant development in this court.

"The prosecution have a duty to review the case continually during the trial, against each defendant.

"In respect of counts where there is no evidence at all, you have already returned not guilty verdicts.

"In respect of the remaining counts, there was some evidence given by the complainant to you but in respect of each allegation, you may have concluded there were some problems concerning the evidence given by (the complainant).

"During last week a number of officers were cross-examined about the investigation process in relation to the recording of inquiries made, or, as the case may be, not made.

"The investigation must be transparent and must be fair.

"There must be integrity and the process must be able to stand up to scrutiny.

"Very properly, prosecutors have reviewed the case and concluded there is no reasonable prospect of a proper conviction in respect of any individual."

The judge directed the jury to find the men not guilty on all charges.

A CPS spokesperson said: “During the course of this trial, it emerged that some of the evidence in these cases had not been secured in accordance with the strict guidelines governing police investigations.

“Given the significance of the issues that came to light, there was no longer a realistic prospect of securing a conviction in each case and the Crown took the appropriate decision to formally offer no evidence against the defendants.”
The link to Story: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/nor...

no-reply@bch.ecase.gsi.gov.uk on behalf of FOI Team, Bedfordshire Police

1 Atodiad

Dear Martin McGartland,

Please find attached our response to your request for information.

Yours sincerely,

Rachel Beaty

Information Rights

Bedfordshire Police

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

13 March 2019

Good afternoon Rachel,

I am NOT requesting a review at this stage.

Bedfordshire police have not dealt with my request, are not complying with the FOIA 2000.

At part 1 of my request I requested; "A detailed breakdown of all amounts claimed by Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire force/s concerning their, the Jon Boutcher Review of the Martin McGartland attempted murder (Northumbria Police 'Investigation') . The request is for' a, Total amount paid by Northumbria Police (NP) todate. b, Breakdown of all amounts claimed from, paid by NP todate (including details/reasons for all payments etc).

In reply to 1 above you said; Question 1 - Since the outset of the review, Northumbria Police have been invoiced for £11,235.11p. Those costs are for Travel, accommodation, subsistence & forensic consultancy."

Thank you for answering part 1 a of my request (total amount..) You have not answered part 1 b.
Please would you answer part 1 b "Breakdown of all amounts claimed from, paid by NP todate (including details/reasons for all payments etc)."

I would like a breakdown of all payments as well as "details/reasons for all payments". Would you also supply me with
G1 All amounts claimed, paid for by NP for Travel (as well as details ... and a breakdown)
G2 All amounts claimed, paid for by NP for accommodation (as well as full details ... and a breakdown)
G3 All amounts claimed, paid for by NP for subsistence (as well as full details... and a breakdown)
G4 All amounts claimed, paid for by NP for forensic consultancy (as well as full details... and a breakdown)
G5 A breakdown of all other amounts claimed from NP, paid for by NP as well as full details, amount claimed, what each amount relates to, reason/s for each payment/s etc.

Please Note.. I would also like to be sent copies of all original invoices / documents and paperwork relating to all requests for payments / payments to (and between ... between your forces and NP. That would include copies of emails and letters (other correspondence)

With regards to part 2 of my request in which I asked; 2, "What action, if any, has Jon Boutcher and his force / officers taken as a result of their findings of their review"?

You have cited exemption Section 30 ... 30(3). Section 30 , as I understand, would not be engaged because Jon Boutcher, his officers are NOT carrying out any type of criminal investigation/s .... BUT are conducting a 'Review' which was concluded by them in early 2018. As a result, Section 30 ... would not be engaged. The same is the case regarding parts 3 and 4 of my request.

S. 30;.... "can only be claimed by public authorities that have a duty to investigate whether someone should be charged with an offence, or the power to conduct such investigations and/or institute criminal proceedings.  It is class based and information which has been held at any time for the purpose of these investigations and proceedings will be exempt. " ...

"When considering the public interest in maintaining the exemptions it is necessary to be clear what they are designed to protect. In broad terms, the section 30 exemptions exist to ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of offences and the protection of confidential sources. They recognise the need to prevent disclosures that would prejudice either a particular investigation or set of proceedings, or the investigatory and prosecution processes generally, including any prejudice to future investigations and proceedings."

Part 5 of my request has not been answered, Would you please explain reason/s why CC Jon Boutcher and his number 2 (ACC Paul Fullwood) are continuing to suppress and cover up their review findings (their report) from Martin McGartland when them made many promises and assurances that they would disclose a copy of their report to him at same time it was disclosed to Northumbria Police. I rely of my part 5 of my request in full. However, PLEASE answer a simply question; What is the reason why Jon Boutcher (and ACC Fullwood) has broken his promises and why is he not disclosing his report, findings (as he gave his word he would do) to Martin McGartland?

I did say in my request that; "I would hope that Jon Boutcher would be completely open and transparent when dealing with this matter, this FOI request." He has been everything but .... emails sent direct to him by victim of an unsolved attempted murder ... as well as above / other questions have been (and continue to be) ignored, the questions have never been answered.

Please can Bedfordshire Police / Jon Boutcher comply with FOIA and also supply me with the information, as above, which I have requested.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

20 March 2019

Dear FOI Team,

It has been a week since I last wrote to you requesting further details as follows. Can I PLEASE have a reply;

"I am NOT requesting a review at this stage.

Bedfordshire police have not dealt with my request, are not complying with the FOIA 2000.

At part 1 of my request I requested; "A detailed breakdown of all amounts claimed by Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire force/s concerning their, the Jon Boutcher Review of the Martin McGartland attempted murder (Northumbria Police 'Investigation') . The request is for' a, Total amount paid by Northumbria Police (NP) todate. b, Breakdown of all amounts claimed from, paid by NP todate (including details/reasons for all payments etc).

In reply to 1 above you said; Question 1 - Since the outset of the review, Northumbria Police have been invoiced for £11,235.11p. Those costs are for Travel, accommodation, subsistence & forensic consultancy."

Thank you for answering part 1 a of my request (total amount..) You have not answered part 1 b.
Please would you answer part 1 b "Breakdown of all amounts claimed from, paid by NP todate (including details/reasons for all payments etc)."

I would like a breakdown of all payments as well as "details/reasons for all payments". Would you also supply me with
G1 All amounts claimed, paid for by NP for Travel (as well as details ... and a breakdown)
G2 All amounts claimed, paid for by NP for accommodation (as well as full details ... and a breakdown)
G3 All amounts claimed, paid for by NP for subsistence (as well as full details... and a breakdown)
G4 All amounts claimed, paid for by NP for forensic consultancy (as well as full details... and a breakdown)
G5 A breakdown of all other amounts claimed from NP, paid for by NP as well as full details, amount claimed, what each amount relates to, reason/s for each payment/s etc.

Please Note.. I would also like to be sent copies of all original invoices / documents and paperwork relating to all requests for payments / payments to (and between ... between your forces and NP. That would include copies of emails and letters (other correspondence)

With regards to part 2 of my request in which I asked; 2, "What action, if any, has Jon Boutcher and his force / officers taken as a result of their findings of their review"?

You have cited exemption Section 30 ... 30(3). Section 30 , as I understand, would not be engaged because Jon Boutcher, his officers are NOT carrying out any type of criminal investigation/s .... BUT are conducting a 'Review' which was concluded by them in early 2018. As a result, Section 30 ... would not be engaged. The same is the case regarding parts 3 and 4 of my request.

S. 30;.... "can only be claimed by public authorities that have a duty to investigate whether someone should be charged with an offence, or the power to conduct such investigations and/or institute criminal proceedings.  It is class based and information which has been held at any time for the purpose of these investigations and proceedings will be exempt. " ...

"When considering the public interest in maintaining the exemptions it is necessary to be clear what they are designed to protect. In broad terms, the section 30 exemptions exist to ensure the effective investigation and prosecution of offences and the protection of confidential sources. They recognise the need to prevent disclosures that would prejudice either a particular investigation or set of proceedings, or the investigatory and prosecution processes generally, including any prejudice to future investigations and proceedings."

Part 5 of my request has not been answered, Would you please explain reason/s why CC Jon Boutcher and his number 2 (ACC Paul Fullwood) are continuing to suppress and cover up their review findings (their report) from Martin McGartland when them made many promises and assurances that they would disclose a copy of their report to him at same time it was disclosed to Northumbria Police. I rely of my part 5 of my request in full. However, PLEASE answer a simply question; What is the reason why Jon Boutcher (and ACC Fullwood) has broken his promises and why is he not disclosing his report, findings (as he gave his word he would do) to Martin McGartland?

I did say in my request that; "I would hope that Jon Boutcher would be completely open and transparent when dealing with this matter, this FOI request." He has been everything but .... emails sent direct to him by victim of an unsolved attempted murder ... as well as above / other questions have been (and continue to be) ignored, the questions have never been answered.

Please can Bedfordshire Police / Jon Boutcher comply with FOIA and also supply me with the information, as above, which I have requested."

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Freedom of Information, Bedfordshire Police

Dear Mr McGartland

As you have complained about the handling of your FOI request this is being dealt with as an internal review under reference number IR2019/01892.

Our response will be provided as soon as possible.

Kind Regards

Rachel Beaty
Information Rights
Bedfordshire Police

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

20 March 2019

Dear Rachel,

When I wrote to you on 13 March (1 week ago) I did say that I was not requesting an internal review at this stage. You did not write to me (until I wrote to you today) to let me know that you had took the decision to deal with this as a review.

Reviews are required to be dealt with within 20 working days from date request received (13 March). I suspect that being reason for this latest delay when it concerns my requests to CC Jon Boutcher / ACC Paul Fullwood for information relating to their review of my attempted murder (the findings which they continue to cover up from me).

This request / review is required to be answered on or before 10 April 2019 ? (another delaying tactic - well done Jon & Paul) ...

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

03 April 2018

Dear Freedom of Information,

Can I please have an update on this request. Would you also let me know, Please, when I can expect a reply?

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

10 April 2019

Dear Freedom of Information,

This internal review, in law, should have been answered by now. Please let me have your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Freedom of Information, Bedfordshire Police

3 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland,

Please find attached our internal review response.

Kind regards

Mary Donoghue
Information Rights

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

10 April 2019

Dear Freedom of Information,

You have still not disclosed all of the information which I requested, i,e
A detailed breakdown of all amounts claimed by Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire force/s concerning their, the Jon Boutcher Review of the Martin McGartland attempted murder (Northumbria Police 'Investigation'). ..... I refer to my above request (in full) regards what I requested.

You have sent me an incomplete breakdown which does not include all of the details / information which I requested.

In your 19 March 2019 reply you stated that;
"Question 1 – Since the outset of this review, Northumbria Police have been invoiced for £11,235.11p. Those costs are for: Travel, accommodation, subsistence & forensic consultancy. " You have now said that the total amount is £9,260.92. Please explain reason for supplying those two different amounts and the reason for it.

You have said that £945.00 was paid for 'Forensic costs' but you have not supplied;
a, the date,
b, who the payment was paid to,
c, what type of forensic service / work it related to,
d, reason for the payment
Would you please disclose those details.

Please also explain what the document means where it refers to 'Period' 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7.

In your previous reply to questions 2, 3 and 4 you stated; "Bedfordshire Police have conducted a review which has been passed to Northumbria Police. We can neither confirm nor deny if any other actions have been taken at this time as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption: Section 30(3) Investigations
The Section 30 exemption is a class-based qualified exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. There is therefore no requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information. However there is a requirement to carry out a Public Interest Test in order to establish whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption may be outweighed by a wider public benefit in disclosure."

You are now claiming:

Part 5 of my request was as follows;
"Jon Boutcher (as well as his number 2 - ACC Paul Fullwood) promised that they would disclose a copy of their review findings / report to Martin McGartland. Despite assuring Martin McGartland of same on many occasions and making same promises the report continues to be suppressed, covered up. What is the reason why Jon Boutcher (and ACC Fullwood) has broken his promises and why is he not disclosing his report, findings [as he gave his word he would do] to Martin McGartland? I would hope that Jon Boutcher would be completely open and transparent when dealing with this matter, this FOI request."

In Bedfordshire Police's reply of 12 March they stated: "Question 5 – The review has been provided to Northumbria Police, due to the sensitive nature of the document which is held in relation to a live criminal investigation, legal advice is being sought around disclosure. Bedfordshire Police recommended that a redacted version should be disclosed to the victim by Northumbria Police. However, this would not be under the Freedom of Information Act, as a disclosure under this route can only take place if there is no harm in providing the information to the world at large. "

I requested a review (part of which related to 5 above not having been answered) and in your reply of today regards part 5 you said: " I consider that this question has been addressed in the original response..." It is evident from the above that it has not.... i.e. Jon Boutcher and Paul Fullwood both assured and promised me (a number of times) that they would disclose their report to me. They have not done so. Why did they change their minds ... for what reason. Please refer me to the part of Bedfordshire police reply in which you consider this part of my requested has been answered 'addressed'?

Also, it would appear that you have either misunderstood my request or you are simply not dealing with it correctly. To be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, parts 2, 3 and 4 of my request (which still have not been dealt with) Do Not relate to the investigation of my 1999 shooting. They relate to the Jon Boutcher review and the issue of the conduct of past / present Northumbria Police officers who worked on my shooting investigation.

Again, Jon Boucher and Paul Fullwood promissed and assured me that any wrongdoing, misconduct identified during their review would be dealt with, taken forwarded and also reported to IOPC/IPCC, CPS/DPP ... I did say in my request; "I understand that the Boutcher Review of the NP 'investigation' has identified very serious gross as well as criminal conduct by NP officers (and others) who were involved in the Martin McGartland NP 'investigation'. The police (Including Jon Boutcher) are required by law to challenge, report and investigate such matters. " And I requested; "Under the FOIA I would also link to know;

2. What action, if any, has Jon Boutcher and or his force / officers taken as result of their findings of their review?

3. Regards 2 above, has Jon Boutcher reported NP, its officers, others to CPS, DPP, IOPC/IPCC or any other police force. If not, why not?
- Note to reader: ACC Paul Fullwood and Jon Boutcher assured and promised Martin McGartland that action would be taken against anyone (no matter who) and without fear or favour where misconduct / criminal has been identified.

4. Regards above, has Jon Boutcher, his force / officers began any type of investigation/s (including criminal) into NP, its officers (past and present) and or any others concerning review findings?"

Those above parts of my request relate ONLY to the Boutcher review of my attempted murder case / Northumbria Police's 'investigation' and handling of it. And to wrongdoing, misconduct failings ... therein and by any Northumbria Police officers / staff (or others) who worked on my attempted murder case. Those identified by the review, as above, that Jon Boutcher, Paul Fullwood promised and assured me would be acted upon /taken forward. All I have had to date from them (and as the victim in this case) is total silence, cover up, failure to answer my questions (and emails), broken promise after broken promise, failure to disclose their report as they also promised. It has been like dealing with two fast taking salesmen.

I also requested copies of original documents, i,e. requests to NP (and replies) by Bedfordshire / Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire Police as well as emails, invoices. You have not deal with this. If you are once again going to refuse to deal with this PLEASE accept this part of my request as a new FOI request for that information.

I await your reply to this request.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

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

Martin McGartland

15 April 2019

Dear CC Jon Boutcher,

This will be the last FOI request that I will make to you / your force.

When I met with you and ACC Paul Fulwood in late 2017, when you agreed to review my attempted murder investigation by Northumbria Police, you promised and assured me then (and many times since) that;

1. You would disclose a copy of your review report / findings (the Boutcher review and findings) to me;

2. You would take action (no matter against who - without fear or favour) if you / your review team identified any wrongdoing (or suspicions and that they would be taken forward)

3. You also promised me that your review would be )completely transparent, thorough and that you / review team would report all of your findings truthfully Etc Etc

Despite above, you have refused to disclose your report (or even a redacted copy - another of your promises you broke) to me even when you completed your review more than 1 year ago (Feb, March 2018).

During that period, you have also refused to supply me with any details about your / review teams findings. And you have ignored my emails which I asked you to please answer questions that I asked you about the review, the findings. To date, you continue to refuse to answer my questions ... and now you (as well as ACC Paul Fullwood) are ignoring my emails. You have now fobbed me off to your Head of Legal (Kate Stephenson) and even your information Unit (shame on you, Jon).

Now you (via Ms Stephenson) are attempting to dupe me into attending a meeting with you , as you / your Head of Legal are claiming, to: "Discuss the report and recommendations". This is despite my my informing you by email (on a number of occasions) that I would not meet you because I no longer had any faith, trust or confidence in you (once bitten .. twice shy). Ms Stephenson (on your instructions - grow up / man up, Jon) continues to make the same offer of a meeting (when you, she are well aware that I will never agree to another meeting - just so you can taken advantage of me once again).

I have been requesting (many times) that you PLEASE put into a letter / email what you want to tell me (discuss) at a meeting. You are also refusing to do that too. Given the above, as well as the broken promises and assurances ... your continually refusing to answer my questions, failing to supply me with a copy of your review report / findings - as you promised you would (and even refusing to give me any details at all about your findings) Etc ... etc.

It begs the question ... what is it that you are hiding, Jon. And why is it that you are not willing to include what you want to tell me in a letter / email?

I understand that you are due to retire from Bedfordshire police in July..... I sincerely hope that you will afford me a proper (and detailed) explanation before you depart. And that you will honour the promise you made to me. Given the way you have let me down, treated me as if I have no rights, ignoring me and passing me (as the victim in this case from pillar to post) I suspect you will not.

I spoke to a newspaper recently about you, this matter.... I said that when I first met you in 2017 that; "that I couldn't have been more impressed" ... "you were so sincere, knowledgeable and robust in your approach" ... "were so knowledgeable 'were a breath of fresh air' .... that I was so convinced that you would 'walk the walk' .... and that you would 'go for broke in ensuring that the security services and the cops would be held to account' .... 'He convinced me that he would leave no stone unturned in his quest for truth and justice"

suffice to say I no longer hold that view. And on a personal note, and in my humble opinion - and based on my dealings with you (during which time you have let me down so badly) I do not have any faith that you will deliver for the victims of the Stakeknife Inquiry. It was as a direct result of your Inquiry, your public statements, that I first became aware of you (Operation Kenova) in which you stated that you were; "committed to doing all they can to find the truth for the victims and their families." All of which were music to me ears. I asked myself .... who is this guy? That being the reason, statements such as that, why I made contact with Operation Kenova in 2017. And why I offered to assist, help in any way I could.

I also whole heartily believed, that being reason why I asked you to review my attempted murder case, that your review might help you / Kenova shed some light into the dirty war

It was as a result of that contact that you and I first met. And as a result, and due to the above, why I asked you later if you would consider reviewing my (the Northumbria Police - NP) investigation in to my 1999 attempted murder (of which you, other officers from Kenova were aware of my claims of serious corruption / failings by NP in that investigation). You accepted to take on the review.

Sadly (and with a heavy heart) and due to the above, the events of the previous 12 months (to date) and because of my breakdown in trust in you, my being so bitterly disappointed in you I have recently contacted Kenova team (who I have no issues with - they are true professionals, first class individuals... ) and asked them to destroy all of my statements / audio recordings. And I informed them that I was withdrawing all of my help and assistance. I explained that it was as a result of breakdown of trust (as above) in you ... due to your broken promises etc.

Anyway... enough of that. What I would like to know (to ask you) under the FOIA 2000;

1. Will you now be disclosing a copy of your review report to me as you promised (the redacted version that your review team prepared for that very purpose?
If not, would you PLEASE (I beg you) explain why not. And also why you are now breaking the promises you made to me that you will disclose report to me? ( I am entitled to an explanation).

2. Will you now be answering (by email) the questions I emailed you concerning your review into my 20 year old unsolved (I am very clear, which remains unsolved ONLY because / and as a direct result of NP / MI5 and British Government corruption - obstructed/ botched investigation to protect IRA, IRA terrorists and suspects. If not, PLEASE explain why you will not answer my questions?)

3. Will you now (given above - when you are aware I will not be meeting you) write to me by email and explain everything that you would want to tell me (discuss) at a meeting. If not, PLEASE explain why not?

You absolutely convinced me that I could trust you, that you would get to the truth. And I believed in you ... I had total confidence in you. I trusted you more than any one I have dealt with before you.. I have learned a valuable lesson from my dealing with you .... and it is this. I will never again trust anyone who is connected with / to and employed by the state. For once, in my entire 25 years of seeking truth and justice, I was never so convinced in all that time that I had finally found it in you. The words.... "If I can't trust Jon Boutcher who can I trust" continually ring in my ears (while recalling all the promises and assurances - all since broken) you made to me.

All of which have resulted in a total waste of your review officers time (who I greatly respect), your time as well as mine. I would walk up and down the Falls road (wearing a "support Agent Carol" t shirt on (I kid you not) just to be able to have a wee peek at the original review team draft report . The one that you sent back to be changed rewritten in parts??????

I sincerely hope that you will now do the right thing. And that you will honour the promises you made to me, that you will email me your redacted report and findings. And that you will be completely open and transparent (which you have not been to date) and answer my questions.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

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

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

23 April 2019

Dear Freedom of Information,

Could you please let me have a reply to my below 10 April message/email/

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

10 April 2019

Dear Freedom of Information,

You have still not disclosed all of the information which I requested, i,e
A detailed breakdown of all amounts claimed by Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire force/s concerning their, the Jon Boutcher Review of the Martin McGartland attempted murder (Northumbria Police 'Investigation'). ..... I refer to my above request (in full) regards what I requested.

You have sent me an incomplete breakdown which does not include all of the details / information which I requested.

In your 19 March 2019 reply you stated that;
"Question 1 – Since the outset of this review, Northumbria Police have been invoiced for £11,235.11p. Those costs are for: Travel, accommodation, subsistence & forensic consultancy. " You have now said that the total amount is £9,260.92. Please explain reason for supplying those two different amounts and the reason for it.

You have said that £945.00 was paid for 'Forensic costs' but you have not supplied;
a, the date,
b, who the payment was paid to,
c, what type of forensic service / work it related to,
d, reason for the payment
Would you please disclose those details.

Please also explain what the document means where it refers to 'Period' 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7.

In your previous reply to questions 2, 3 and 4 you stated; "Bedfordshire Police have conducted a review which has been passed to Northumbria Police. We can neither confirm nor deny if any other actions have been taken at this time as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption: Section 30(3) Investigations
The Section 30 exemption is a class-based qualified exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. There is therefore no requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information. However there is a requirement to carry out a Public Interest Test in order to establish whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption may be outweighed by a wider public benefit in disclosure."

You are now claiming:

Part 5 of my request was as follows;
"Jon Boutcher (as well as his number 2 - ACC Paul Fullwood) promised that they would disclose a copy of their review findings / report to Martin McGartland. Despite assuring Martin McGartland of same on many occasions and making same promises the report continues to be suppressed, covered up. What is the reason why Jon Boutcher (and ACC Fullwood) has broken his promises and why is he not disclosing his report, findings [as he gave his word he would do] to Martin McGartland? I would hope that Jon Boutcher would be completely open and transparent when dealing with this matter, this FOI request."

In Bedfordshire Police's reply of 12 March they stated: "Question 5 – The review has been provided to Northumbria Police, due to the sensitive nature of the document which is held in relation to a live criminal investigation, legal advice is being sought around disclosure. Bedfordshire Police recommended that a redacted version should be disclosed to the victim by Northumbria Police. However, this would not be under the Freedom of Information Act, as a disclosure under this route can only take place if there is no harm in providing the information to the world at large. "

I requested a review (part of which related to 5 above not having been answered) and in your reply of today regards part 5 you said: " I consider that this question has been addressed in the original response..." It is evident from the above that it has not.... i.e. Jon Boutcher and Paul Fullwood both assured and promised me (a number of times) that they would disclose their report to me. They have not done so. Why did they change their minds ... for what reason. Please refer me to the part of Bedfordshire police reply in which you consider this part of my requested has been answered 'addressed'?

Also, it would appear that you have either misunderstood my request or you are simply not dealing with it correctly. To be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, parts 2, 3 and 4 of my request (which still have not been dealt with) Do Not relate to the investigation of my 1999 shooting. They relate to the Jon Boutcher review and the issue of the conduct of past / present Northumbria Police officers who worked on my shooting investigation.

Again, Jon Boucher and Paul Fullwood promissed and assured me that any wrongdoing, misconduct identified during their review would be dealt with, taken forwarded and also reported to IOPC/IPCC, CPS/DPP ... I did say in my request; "I understand that the Boutcher Review of the NP 'investigation' has identified very serious gross as well as criminal conduct by NP officers (and others) who were involved in the Martin McGartland NP 'investigation'. The police (Including Jon Boutcher) are required by law to challenge, report and investigate such matters. " And I requested; "Under the FOIA I would also link to know;

2. What action, if any, has Jon Boutcher and or his force / officers taken as result of their findings of their review?

3. Regards 2 above, has Jon Boutcher reported NP, its officers, others to CPS, DPP, IOPC/IPCC or any other police force. If not, why not?
- Note to reader: ACC Paul Fullwood and Jon Boutcher assured and promised Martin McGartland that action would be taken against anyone (no matter who) and without fear or favour where misconduct / criminal has been identified.

4. Regards above, has Jon Boutcher, his force / officers began any type of investigation/s (including criminal) into NP, its officers (past and present) and or any others concerning review findings?"

Those above parts of my request relate ONLY to the Boutcher review of my attempted murder case / Northumbria Police's 'investigation' and handling of it. And to wrongdoing, misconduct failings ... therein and by any Northumbria Police officers / staff (or others) who worked on my attempted murder case. Those identified by the review, as above, that Jon Boutcher, Paul Fullwood promised and assured me would be acted upon /taken forward. All I have had to date from them (and as the victim in this case) is total silence, cover up, failure to answer my questions (and emails), broken promise after broken promise, failure to disclose their report as they also promised. It has been like dealing with two fast taking salesmen.

I also requested copies of original documents, i,e. requests to NP (and replies) by Bedfordshire / Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire Police as well as emails, invoices. You have not deal with this. If you are once again going to refuse to deal with this PLEASE accept this part of my request as a new FOI request for that information.

I await your reply to this request.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Freedom of Information, Bedfordshire Police

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your email, I am currently dealing with your enquiry and have logged this as a new Freedom of Information request, a response will be provided in due course.

Kind regards

Karen Kennedy
Information Rights Supervisor (Beds, Herts & Cambs)
Email: [email address]

Please think about the impact on the environment before printing this email - is it necessary to do so? 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

1 May 2019

Dear Freedom of Information,

Could you please explain reason wshy you are dealing with this as a new FOI request?

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

07 May 2019

Dear Freedom of Information,

I asked if you would please explain why you have took the decision to deal with this as a new FIO request. I have not had a reply. Please would you let me have a reply to my previous message, as above.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

no-reply@bch.ecase.gsi.gov.uk on behalf of FOI Team, Bedfordshire Police

1 Atodiad

  • Attachment

    Beds Response FOI2019 02534.rtf

    765K Download

Dear Martin McGartland,

I am writing in response to your request for information, received 10th
April.

Yours sincerely,
Karen Kennedy

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

12 May 2019

Dear [email address] on behalf of FOI Team,

You are not dealing with my request correctly, you are not complying with the FOIA. And you are delaying answering this request. You have also sent me a reply that is not related to above (this request) and in doing so you are not complying with FOIA, your legal obligations. Please reply to this request without any further delay. And also reply to my Martin McGartland 10 April 2019 message/email as follows;

10 April 2019

Dear Freedom of Information,

You have still not disclosed all of the information which I requested, i,e
A detailed breakdown of all amounts claimed by Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire force/s concerning their, the Jon Boutcher Review of the Martin McGartland attempted murder (Northumbria Police 'Investigation'). ..... I refer to my above request (in full) regards what I requested.

You have sent me an incomplete breakdown which does not include all of the details / information which I requested.

In your 19 March 2019 reply you stated that;
"Question 1 – Since the outset of this review, Northumbria Police have been invoiced for £11,235.11p. Those costs are for: Travel, accommodation, subsistence & forensic consultancy. " You have now said that the total amount is £9,260.92. Please explain reason for supplying those two different amounts and the reason for it.

You have said that £945.00 was paid for 'Forensic costs' but you have not supplied;
a, the date,
b, who the payment was paid to,
c, what type of forensic service / work it related to,
d, reason for the payment
Would you please disclose those details.

Please also explain what the document means where it refers to 'Period' 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7.

In your previous reply to questions 2, 3 and 4 you stated; "Bedfordshire Police have conducted a review which has been passed to Northumbria Police. We can neither confirm nor deny if any other actions have been taken at this time as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption: Section 30(3) Investigations
The Section 30 exemption is a class-based qualified exemption. This means that the legislators when writing the legislation considered that the release of such information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 would cause harm to the public authority or individual concerned. There is therefore no requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information. However there is a requirement to carry out a Public Interest Test in order to establish whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption may be outweighed by a wider public benefit in disclosure."

You are now claiming:

Part 5 of my request was as follows;
"Jon Boutcher (as well as his number 2 - ACC Paul Fullwood) promised that they would disclose a copy of their review findings / report to Martin McGartland. Despite assuring Martin McGartland of same on many occasions and making same promises the report continues to be suppressed, covered up. What is the reason why Jon Boutcher (and ACC Fullwood) has broken his promises and why is he not disclosing his report, findings [as he gave his word he would do] to Martin McGartland? I would hope that Jon Boutcher would be completely open and transparent when dealing with this matter, this FOI request."

In Bedfordshire Police's reply of 12 March they stated: "Question 5 – The review has been provided to Northumbria Police, due to the sensitive nature of the document which is held in relation to a live criminal investigation, legal advice is being sought around disclosure. Bedfordshire Police recommended that a redacted version should be disclosed to the victim by Northumbria Police. However, this would not be under the Freedom of Information Act, as a disclosure under this route can only take place if there is no harm in providing the information to the world at large. "

I requested a review (part of which related to 5 above not having been answered) and in your reply of today regards part 5 you said: " I consider that this question has been addressed in the original response..." It is evident from the above that it has not.... i.e. Jon Boutcher and Paul Fullwood both assured and promised me (a number of times) that they would disclose their report to me. They have not done so. Why did they change their minds ... for what reason. Please refer me to the part of Bedfordshire police reply in which you consider this part of my requested has been answered 'addressed'?

Also, it would appear that you have either misunderstood my request or you are simply not dealing with it correctly. To be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, parts 2, 3 and 4 of my request (which still have not been dealt with) Do Not relate to the investigation of my 1999 shooting. They relate to the Jon Boutcher review and the issue of the conduct of past / present Northumbria Police officers who worked on my shooting investigation.

Again, Jon Boucher and Paul Fullwood promissed and assured me that any wrongdoing, misconduct identified during their review would be dealt with, taken forwarded and also reported to IOPC/IPCC, CPS/DPP ... I did say in my request; "I understand that the Boutcher Review of the NP 'investigation' has identified very serious gross as well as criminal conduct by NP officers (and others) who were involved in the Martin McGartland NP 'investigation'. The police (Including Jon Boutcher) are required by law to challenge, report and investigate such matters. " And I requested; "Under the FOIA I would also link to know;

2. What action, if any, has Jon Boutcher and or his force / officers taken as result of their findings of their review?

3. Regards 2 above, has Jon Boutcher reported NP, its officers, others to CPS, DPP, IOPC/IPCC or any other police force. If not, why not?
- Note to reader: ACC Paul Fullwood and Jon Boutcher assured and promised Martin McGartland that action would be taken against anyone (no matter who) and without fear or favour where misconduct / criminal has been identified.

4. Regards above, has Jon Boutcher, his force / officers began any type of investigation/s (including criminal) into NP, its officers (past and present) and or any others concerning review findings?"

Those above parts of my request relate ONLY to the Boutcher review of my attempted murder case / Northumbria Police's 'investigation' and handling of it. And to wrongdoing, misconduct failings ... therein and by any Northumbria Police officers / staff (or others) who worked on my attempted murder case. Those identified by the review, as above, that Jon Boutcher, Paul Fullwood promised and assured me would be acted upon /taken forward. All I have had to date from them (and as the victim in this case) is total silence, cover up, failure to answer my questions (and emails), broken promise after broken promise, failure to disclose their report as they also promised. It has been like dealing with two fast taking salesmen.

I also requested copies of original documents, i,e. requests to NP (and replies) by Bedfordshire / Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire Police as well as emails, invoices. You have not deal with this. If you are once again going to refuse to deal with this PLEASE accept this part of my request as a new FOI request for that information.

I await your reply to this request.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland
Ends

I wait your reply, copies of documents (copies of originals), breakdown etc concerning this request.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

12 May 2019

Dear Sir / Madam,

You have sent, attached the above reply to the wrong page / request. The above reply concerning external legal costs should have been added, sent to this page / request; https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/j...

Please would you resend the above external legal costs reply to the (above page link) correct request/page.

And will you now reply to this, the above reply which you are delaying .... which is now out of time (has not been answered) and in breach of FOIA.

I trust that you will reply to this request without any further delay.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Freedom of Information, Bedfordshire Police

Dear Mr McGartland

This email is in relation to FOI 2019/02533 sent from the following link - Martin McGartland <[FOI #552158 email]>

Thank you for your email, I am waiting for information in relation to your request, when I have the information that is held by Bedfordshire Police I will issue your response. Please accept my apologies for the delay and the confusion with your various FOI requests being sent to the incorrect Whatdotheyknow link.

Kind regards

Karen Kennedy
Information Rights Supervisor (Beds, Herts & Cambs)

Please think about the impact on the environment before printing this email - is it necessary to do so? 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you for that. I look forward to receiving a reply.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

30 May 2019

Dear Freedom of Information,

You wrote to me over two weeks ago and said that you were waiting on information relating to this requests. The request has already been significantly delayed. It should have been answered long before now.

Please would you let me have a reply without any further delay.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

KENNEDY, Karen 8305,

3 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

 

Thank you for your email, please find attached part 1 of your disclosure
under FOI, I have had to send in two emails due to the size of the file. 
The second email will follow this.

 

Kind regards

 

Karen Kennedy

Information Rights Supervisor (Beds, Herts & Cambs)

 

Tel Office: 01234 858135

Email: [1][email address]

Please think about the impact on the environment before printing this
email - is it necessary to do so? 

 

[2]cid:image003.png@01D28C6A.2105DCA0

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To visit Cambridgeshire Constabulary's website please follow this link:

[3]https://www.cambs.police.uk/home.aspx

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.cambs.police.uk/home.aspx

KENNEDY, Karen 8305,

3 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

 

Please find part two of your disclosure under FOI.

 

Karen Kennedy

Information Rights Supervisor (Beds, Herts & Cambs)

 

Tel Office: 01234 858135

Email: [1][email address]

Please think about the impact on the environment before printing this
email - is it necessary to do so? 

 

[2]cid:image003.png@01D28C6A.2105DCA0

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

To visit Cambridgeshire Constabulary's website please follow this link:

[3]https://www.cambs.police.uk/home.aspx

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
3. https://www.cambs.police.uk/home.aspx

Martin McGartland

21 June 2019

Dear Ms Kennedy,

This request was first made on 12 Feb (over 4 months ago) and during that time I have been subjected to one delay after another. And - to date - I have not been sent all of the information / documents which I requested.

If this request is not answered properly, and in full, I will be making a complaint.

I am NOT requesting a review BUT I am expected your force / unit to supply with the information (as required in law) which relates to this request.

I will rely on all previous correspondent I have sent regards this request (and I would respectfully ask you, your force read all of my correspondence in this case before replying).

In my 10 April email I asked for full details concerning the £945.00 payment / cost for forensic service, work (pad for by taxpayer) as well as "What type of forensic service / work it related to."

In your 30 May 2019 reply when referring to those costs you included; "...£945.00 were in respect of a consultancy meeting in December 2017 with Eurofins Forensic Services Ltd."

In my 13 March email I also included; "Please Note.. I would also like to be sent copies of all original invoices / documents and paperwork relating to all requests for payments / payments to (and between ... between your forces and NP. That would include copies of emails and letters (other correspondence)"

I have not disclosed;

1. A copy (copy of original) invoice, document/s from Eurofins Forensic Services Ltd, Would you please disclose that without further delay. I have also been requesting information concerning the type of Forensic service / work (E.g. DNA, ballistic etc and reasons for it). No information, documents [Including Eurofins Report/s etc) has been disclosed. Nor emails, letters, records and all other information between your forces, reviewing officers / any other officers. Would you please comply with FOIA and disclose the requested information, documents.

2. Correspondence (none) between your forces, review team, CC Jon Boutcher, ACC Paul Fullwood and CC Winton Keenen (His DCC, ACC's - other officers) has been disclosed. Would you please disclose that requested information.

As above, my request was for copies of all original documents. However, a large number of receipts which you have disclosed to me have very clearly been defaced (made unreadable) by someone in your info unit during copying stage (and or by other staff / officer/s before being passed to your unit).

I am requesting your depts help and assistance (as under FOIA) with regards to checking all of the documents which have been disclosed regards defaced documents. I am clear that this is a very clear attempt by person/person *as above) to cover up non exempt information.

P;lease ensure I am sent proper (readable) copies of all of those defaced documents (copies of originals)... some examples (to assist you in dealing with same) would be.... The first PDF document marked '1 receipts redacted' receipts on page 2 (M&S) is defaced and unreadable. Receipt on page 4 (£3.99 had written on it), page 6, page 8 (-24.00 = £48.35 written on it), page 10 and page 13 are all defaced and unreadable.

As I said, the above are only some (there are many others that have been defaced - and within the different PDF's / documents disclosed). I would like copies of originals (which are clear - readable).

I would remind you, your force that the FOIA (and in law) as well as Information Commissioner clearly
states; It is an offence for the controller, or an officer of the controller, or anyone employed/controlled by them to "alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure of all or part of the information that the person making the request would have been entitled to receive." I trust that this will be immediately dealt with and resolved.

Redactions: As with the above, the law is very clear regarding which type of information can be redacted. You have disclosed documents which have been very heavily redacted. You have also relied on S.40 (2) exemption, i.e. personal information. However - and as you will be aware - information, as in this case, would not be exempt under S40 (2) which relates to;

Job Title, Department, Expenditure Code/s, Mileage, location/s, destination/s etc, details of expenses (and reason/s for each, every amount claimed), details of car/train/taxi Etc journeys (start / finish point/s )and travel as well as reasons, places, places visited, addresses on food, invoice, shop etc bills and invoices and even dates, parking pay and display ticket/s ete (above just some examples of redactions which would not be exempt.)

There are also some documents which have been completely redacted. Details regarding departure and arrival (train journeys / train stations) have also been redacted. Some examples of those would be Document/s marked: 159207, 159210, 171728, 171734, 217957, 217960. 226515, 226518, 252151, 2521154 Etc All of which do not include personal information but which have been redacted.

As have dates of hotel stays, names of hotels / accommodation, dates relating to stay/s in accommodation (hotels etc), date/s redacted relating to full English breakfast, date relating to early check in etc (all redacted) And the same is the case with other redaction on such documents, expense sheets /forms , invoices (not personal information - not exempt) but which has all been redacted

Such information would not (under FOIA - in law) be exempt under section 40(2), and therefore it (as well as similar redacted information / documents ) must be disclosed. I am reserving the right to comp-lain about this to. And to request that any redactions be checked etc.

The total of the two figures for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 is £11,235.11:

It is my understanding that the review was completed in early 2018... there would not be any costs, claims for 2019?

Also, the invoices, documents (and amounts therein) do not reflect the amount of £11,235.11. My request was for all records, documents (copies of originals) and invoices to cover full amount claimed, paid by Northumbria Police regards the review. Please will you also ensure that that information, documents, the records and detailed breakdown are also disclosed under FOIA (and as I request 4 months ago).

Finally, given you have relied on exemption 40(2) and as some of my personal information will of course be included (my name etc) I am hereby (in this correspondence) giving your force my full consent - with regards to this request ONLY - to disclose all information (my personal information) to the wide 'world' and via this What Do they know platform (page) i.e. that which would be regarded as my personal information under FOIA (and in law). You, your force (including review team - CC Boutcher, ACC Fullwood, review officers - who I have already me .. have already established that I am Martin McGartland, and my identity).

Regards my giving my 'Consent'; for my personal information to be disclose (regards this request) to the wider 'world'... I rely on below case (as well as the decision in full) and 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 regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

17 July 2019

Dear Ms Kennedy,

This request was first made around 5 months ago. Since then Bedfordshire police have delayed and obstructed it at every stage. Please would you deal with my 21 June 2019 email (as below fyi) as quickly as possible.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

21 June 2019

Dear Ms Kennedy,

This request was first made on 12 Feb (over 4 months ago) and during that time I have been subjected to one delay after another. And - to date - I have not been sent all of the information / documents which I requested.

If this request is not answered properly, and in full, I will be making a complaint.

I am NOT requesting a review BUT I am expected your force / unit to supply with the information (as required in law) which relates to this request.

I will rely on all previous correspondent I have sent regards this request (and I would respectfully ask you, your force read all of my correspondence in this case before replying).

In my 10 April email I asked for full details concerning the £945.00 payment / cost for forensic service, work (pad for by taxpayer) as well as "What type of forensic service / work it related to."

In your 30 May 2019 reply when referring to those costs you included; "...£945.00 were in respect of a consultancy meeting in December 2017 with Eurofins Forensic Services Ltd."

In my 13 March email I also included; "Please Note.. I would also like to be sent copies of all original invoices / documents and paperwork relating to all requests for payments / payments to (and between ... between your forces and NP. That would include copies of emails and letters (other correspondence)"

I have not disclosed;

1. A copy (copy of original) invoice, document/s from Eurofins Forensic Services Ltd, Would you please disclose that without further delay. I have also been requesting information concerning the type of Forensic service / work (E.g. DNA, ballistic etc and reasons for it). No information, documents [Including Eurofins Report/s etc) has been disclosed. Nor emails, letters, records and all other information between your forces, reviewing officers / any other officers. Would you please comply with FOIA and disclose the requested information, documents.

2. Correspondence (none) between your forces, review team, CC Jon Boutcher, ACC Paul Fullwood and CC Winton Keenen (His DCC, ACC's - other officers) has been disclosed. Would you please disclose that requested information.

As above, my request was for copies of all original documents. However, a large number of receipts which you have disclosed to me have very clearly been defaced (made unreadable) by someone in your info unit during copying stage (and or by other staff / officer/s before being passed to your unit).

I am requesting your depts help and assistance (as under FOIA) with regards to checking all of the documents which have been disclosed regards defaced documents. I am clear that this is a very clear attempt by person/person *as above) to cover up non exempt information.

P;lease ensure I am sent proper (readable) copies of all of those defaced documents (copies of originals)... some examples (to assist you in dealing with same) would be.... The first PDF document marked '1 receipts redacted' receipts on page 2 (M&S) is defaced and unreadable. Receipt on page 4 (£3.99 had written on it), page 6, page 8 (-24.00 = £48.35 written on it), page 10 and page 13 are all defaced and unreadable.

As I said, the above are only some (there are many others that have been defaced - and within the different PDF's / documents disclosed). I would like copies of originals (which are clear - readable).

I would remind you, your force that the FOIA (and in law) as well as Information Commissioner clearly
states; It is an offence for the controller, or an officer of the controller, or anyone employed/controlled by them to "alter, deface, block, erase, destroy or conceal information with the intention of preventing disclosure of all or part of the information that the person making the request would have been entitled to receive." I trust that this will be immediately dealt with and resolved.

Redactions: As with the above, the law is very clear regarding which type of information can be redacted. You have disclosed documents which have been very heavily redacted. You have also relied on S.40 (2) exemption, i.e. personal information. However - and as you will be aware - information, as in this case, would not be exempt under S40 (2) which relates to;

Job Title, Department, Expenditure Code/s, Mileage, location/s, destination/s etc, details of expenses (and reason/s for each, every amount claimed), details of car/train/taxi Etc journeys (start / finish point/s )and travel as well as reasons, places, places visited, addresses on food, invoice, shop etc bills and invoices and even dates, parking pay and display ticket/s ete (above just some examples of redactions which would not be exempt.)

There are also some documents which have been completely redacted. Details regarding departure and arrival (train journeys / train stations) have also been redacted. Some examples of those would be Document/s marked: 159207, 159210, 171728, 171734, 217957, 217960. 226515, 226518, 252151, 2521154 Etc All of which do not include personal information but which have been redacted.

As have dates of hotel stays, names of hotels / accommodation, dates relating to stay/s in accommodation (hotels etc), date/s redacted relating to full English breakfast, date relating to early check in etc (all redacted) And the same is the case with other redaction on such documents, expense sheets /forms , invoices (not personal information - not exempt) but which has all been redacted

Such information would not (under FOIA - in law) be exempt under section 40(2), and therefore it (as well as similar redacted information / documents ) must be disclosed. I am reserving the right to comp-lain about this to. And to request that any redactions be checked etc.

The total of the two figures for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 is £11,235.11:

It is my understanding that the review was completed in early 2018... there would not be any costs, claims for 2019?

Also, the invoices, documents (and amounts therein) do not reflect the amount of £11,235.11. My request was for all records, documents (copies of originals) and invoices to cover full amount claimed, paid by Northumbria Police regards the review. Please will you also ensure that that information, documents, the records and detailed breakdown are also disclosed under FOIA (and as I request 4 months ago).

Finally, given you have relied on exemption 40(2) and as some of my personal information will of course be included (my name etc) I am hereby (in this correspondence) giving your force my full consent - with regards to this request ONLY - to disclose all information (my personal information) to the wide 'world' and via this What Do they know platform (page) i.e. that which would be regarded as my personal information under FOIA (and in law). You, your force (including review team - CC Boutcher, ACC Fullwood, review officers - who I have already me .. have already established that I am Martin McGartland, and my identity).

Regards my giving my 'Consent'; for my personal information to be disclose (regards this request) to the wider 'world'... I rely on below case (as well as the decision in full) and 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 regarding this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

KENNEDY, Karen 8305,

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

Please find attached response.

Kind regards

Information Rights
Bedfordshire Police

Please think about the impact on the environment before printing this email - is it necessary to do so? 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

22 July 2019

Dear Ms KENNEDY,

It is very clear that this too (the covering up of information) failure to disclose documents. And also the defacing of invoices , receipts etc is part of the ongoing cover up in my case.

My above request has not been dealt with correctly. You also claim that the receipts, invoices that you, your office have are the only ones available. That may well be the case, however, the MIU, the office who carried out the review WILL have copies of the original receipts and invoices. Put simply, and as the documents disclosed to date clearly show, someone has very deliberately defaced information on some of those documents. I am once again requesting that Bedfordshire police disclose readable (and copies of the original - and NOT the originals themselves) to me and that they comply with the lay (FOIA 2000).

PLEASE ensure that you, your office copy the original receipts (as I suspect has not happen previously) so that the Marks and Spenser (M&S), Hotel Bills (and food and drink?) invoices, receipts can be read. I have never in my life seen any -0 let alone a number of) M&S tell receipts that is of such poor quantity (where the contact, the amounts on a number of those can't be read - including amounts spent).

It is concerning that you have said that invoices and receipts were destroyed after they are scanned. Please clarify what you, Bedfordshire Police mean by this.... i.e. are they saying that all invoices, receipts which relating to monies / amounts claimed have been already been destroyed? I would remind Bedfordshire police that those relate to amounts (funded by taxpayer) of over £11,000.00. And they relate to a review of an unsolved attempted murder case review which took place between Oct/Nov 2017 and up until 2018. Surely those type of records are required (and originals) to be retained?

Please accept this as a request for an internal review on the grounds that;
1. Bedfordshire Police (BP) have not dealt with my above (this) FOI request correctly;
2. BP have completely ignored my previous correspondence regards this request;
3. BP are not complying with FOIA 2000 while dealing with me, my request;
4. BP are applying a costs exemption (to withhold emails I requested) when the cost to disclose that information would not exceed the cost amount. And BP are using the costs exemption in a blanket form. PLEASE disclose copies of emails up to the cost amount. I will be complaining about this, the way my request has been delayed and obstructed...
5. BP Info Unit have not carried out proper searches under FOIA 2000 when dealing with this request, i,e, regards the above receipts, invoices and documents (the original) . And those originals have not been copied (as filed / stored) buy - I say - have been copied from defaced copies which have then been disclosed to me. The info dept MUST request, view those original documents. And they should copy those (and not allow others to do so) so that I am sent documents, readable copies (Copies of the ordinals documents, and not poor copies of poor copies of those).
6. BP are incorrectly applying S.40 exemptions (personal information) so that they can withhold information relating to hotels (public, blue chip companies / businesses) as well as locations where review officers stayed up to 2 years ago. And this is being done when that information would not be exempt. Nor would it be regarded as Personal information under FOIA 2000. Dates, locations, Hotel names and addresses (and much more) has been incorrectly redacted when it should not have been. Please disclose those documents without those redactions.

++ Fyi - I note that you have not redacted the name, address, date etc on the Eurofins F orensic Services Ltd
which you disclosed to me as part of your reply to this request (disclosed 19 July 2019) but yet BP have redacted above, much more information when it concerns dates review officers stated at Hotel, the names of Hotels, locations of hotels etc. All of which is non exempt disclosure information. The review officers do not live (not their personal addresses, information) at those hotels, at those locations.

I look forward to your reply to this review. For the avoidance of any doubt, I wish to rely (regards this review) on all of #my previous emails, messages to BP regarding this request.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

KENNEDY, Karen 8305,

I am currently out of the office until 2 August 2019

KENNEDY, Karen 8305,

Dear Mr McGartland

Thank you for your email, The response of the 19 July 2019 is an Internal Review , if you are still dissatisfied with the response you may make an application to the Information Commissioner. For information on how to make a complaint please visit their website at https://ico.org.uk/concerns/ or contact them on 0303 123 1113.

Kind regards
K Kennedy
Information Rights Supervisor (Beds, Herts & Cambs)

Please think about the impact on the environment before printing this email - is it necessary to do so? 

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Jon Boutcher - Aka: Op Kenova - did NOT deliver on his promises that he made to Martin McGartland concerning the review of his 20 year unsolved attempted murder case.

Martin McGartland has said; "Jon Boutcher let me down, he continues to cover up his review findings, his report (which he promised would be disclosed to me). And he is also refusing to answer (and is ignoring) questions I have been asking him about his review of my attempted murder case": Facebook page link here; https://www.facebook.com/Jon-Boutcher-Ak...