Martin McGartland 17th June 1999 Shooting

Jo Asher made this Rhyddid Gwybodaeth request to Northumbria Police

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

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Northumbria Police.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I am seeking the
following pieces of information in relation to the attempted murder of Martin McGartland in June 1999.

(1) How many suspects are currently being sought in relation to above case?

(2) Please could you tell me how long has the longest outstanding suspect been sought in relation to this case?

(3) Has the force used familial DNA testing in relation to above unsloved case. If so, when was it first used in relation to above case. How many times has it been used since the june 1999 attack?

(4) How many potential ‘matches’ {as regards to question 3) did the DNA database provide you with in relation to above case.

(5) Please could you supply me with the total cost of the investigation for the first year starting from 16-06-1999 to 16-06-2000.

(6) Please could you supply me with the total current cost
of the investigation for the past 2 years. I would like this information annually, for the past two years up
until the time my request is answered.

(7) Please could you supply me with the up-to-date total current cost of this investigation since 17-06-1999 and until this request is answered.

(8) Please supply full details of all amounts paid by your force in relation to above case on external legal advice and also external legal representation between 17-06-99 and until this request is answered. Please provide a yearly breakdown of the figures and also specify which payments were counsels' fees.

(9) Please provide the names of all law firms and individuals, including counsels, who have supplied such services and/or advice {as regards to question 8) to Northumbria Police concerning Martin McGartland and/or the McGartland the attempted murder case between 17-06-1999 and the date this request is answered.

I would prefer to receive this information electronically. If the decision is made to withhold some of this data using exemptions in Act, please inform me of that fact and cite the exemptions used.

I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing that you have received this request, and I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Jo Asher

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

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

We are in the process of dealing with your request and expect to revert to
you shortly. A response should be provided by 14 February 2011.

Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Dear Northumbria Police,

The FOI Act Procedural Requirements say:

Section 1

7. Section 1(1) of the Act states that:

“Any person making a request for information to a public authority is entitled –
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.”

Section 10
8. Section 10(1) of the Act states that:
“Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt.”

You did not deal with my request for information in accordance with section 1(1) of the Act as you did not informed me whether the requested information is held in response to my request nor, if held, communicated any information to the me.

Northumbria police has breached section 10(1) of the Act in failing to comply with section 1(1) within twenty working days following receipt of the request.

Can you now respond to my request in accordance with the FOI Act.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

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

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

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

It may be worth noting at this stage that the Force has received numerous
requests relating to the subject of Martin McGartland and has previously
declared requests on this subject as vexatious.

Specifically in relation to your request Northumbria Police are
considering the exemptions as set out in the following parts of the Act:

14 Vexatious or repeated requests

(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

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

I can now advise you that the new date for the provision of the
information is 14 March 2011. I can assure that every effort will be made
to ensure that a response will be provided to you within this new
timescale.

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

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor
Direct Dial: 01661 868347

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Dear Mr Cleugh,

This is the first and only freedom of information request I have ever made.

In light of your last reply I would like to request further information from Northumbria Police.

a, How are you researching the information held, with whom and for what reasons. Please supply all information and also a list of names of all persons involved.

b, A list of names of person, or person's, within Northumbria Police who are dealing with or who have been involved with this request.

c, Supply all information of any contact between your office/officers and Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson concerning this request.

d, All information concerning any request for legal advice or assistance concerning this request.

It seems to me that Northumbria Police have not dealt with requests concerning the Martin McGartland case as they should have done under the legislation.

There is a strong public interest in matters relating to this case and also how Northumbria Police spend public funds. It was reported that the cost of the case in the first few months was over £1.5 million.

I would be obliged if you would release the requested information as quickly as possible.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

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

Thank you for your email dated 15 January 2011 in which you made a request
for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

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

You asked:

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I am seeking the following
pieces of information in relation to the attempted murder of Martin
McGartland in June 1999.

1. How many suspects are currently being sought in relation to
above case?

2. Please could you tell me how long has the longest outstanding
suspect been sought in relation to this case?

3. Has the force used familial DNA testing in relation to above
unsloved case. If so, when was it first used in relation to above case.
How many times has it been used since the june 1999 attack?

4. How many potential ?matches? {as regards to question 3) did the
DNA database provide you with in relation to above case.

5. Please could you supply me with the total cost of the
investigation for the first year starting from 16-06-1999 to 16-06-2000.

6. Please could you supply me with the total current cost of the
investigation for the past 2 years. I would like this information
annually, for the past two years up until the time my request is answered.

7. Please could you supply me with the up-to-date total current
cost of this investigation since 17-06-1999 and until this request is
answered.

8. Please supply full details of all amounts paid by your force in
relation to above case on external legal advice and also external legal
representation between 17-06-99 and until this request is answered. Please
provide a yearly breakdown of the figures and also specify which payments
were counsels fees.

9. Please provide the names of all law firms and individuals,
including counsels, who have supplied such services and/or advice {as
regards to question 8) to Northumbria Police concerning Martin McGartland
and/or the McGartland the attempted murder case between 17-06-1999 and the
date this request is answered.

In response:

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

The Disclosure Section has received a large number of other requests from
several parties dating from September 2009 onwards, these all concern
operations involving the specific case of the shooting of Martin
McGartland. Many of these have correctly been classed as vexatious. A
large number of the requests have come through the same web-site and it
would appear that these requestors have been acting in concert due to the
similarity, frequency and nature of the requests submitted. It is
relevant to take into account the volume and frequency of submissions when
considering whether requests can fairly be regarded as obsessive in
nature. Many of the responses supplied by this department have
subsequently been followed up by further requests for information or
requests for internal reviews. Indeed you too have put further questions
to Northumbria Police through the same Freedom of Information request on
this subject matter.

Section 14 - Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
deemed as Vexatious.

Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with
a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person.

An authority is not obliged to deal with requests that are manifestly
unreasonable or obsessive. The Information Commissioner***s Office (ICO)
guidance on vexatious requests states ***there is a risk that some
individuals and some organisations may seek to abuse these new rights with
requests which are manifestly unreasonable. Such cases may well arise in
connection with a grievance or complaint which an individual is pursuing
against an authority. While giving maximum support to individuals
genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the ICO***s general
approach will be sympathetic towards authorities where a request, which
may be the latest in a series of requests, would impose a significant
burden and can otherwise be characterised as obsessive or manifestly
unreasonable". It is clear that a Freedom of Information request is not
the appropriate arena within which to air a grievance or progress a
campaign against Northumbria Police.

Further to this, ICO guidance states ***A request may not be vexatious in
isolation, but when considered in context (for example if it is the latest
in a long series of overlapping requests or other correspondence) it may
form part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious***.
Clearly your request when taken in context with the many other requests
received on this subject is part of an ongoing campaign that can be fairly
called vexatious in nature. Please note that it is the subject of the
request that can be declared vexatious rather than the requestor and it is
therefore relevant to take into account all other requests received and
subsequent responses issued on this matter.

As it is believed that you are acting as part of a campaign group it is
entirely appropriate to take into account the requests made by other
members of that group on the same subject.

Via the What Do They Know web-site, it is apparent that several requests
have been made to different public bodies on this subject including The
Department of Justice (Northern Ireland), The Public Prosecution Service
Northern Ireland, Police Service Northern Ireland, Northumbria Police
Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service. These requests would all
appear to be from people acting in concert in an attempt to raise a
grievance against Northumbria Police.

Your request is clearly part of this campaign and it is very probable that
you are acting in concert with the other parties who have also submitted
substantially similar requests to various public bodies.

It is in the public domain that the investigation into the shooting
remains live. Any requests received regarding this ongoing investigation
can fairly be seen as designed to disrupt the normal business process (the
ongoing investigation). Any release of information which is likely to be
to the detriment of the legal process must be resisted at this time.

In conclusion I am satisfied that your request is of a vexatious nature
and I therefore must advise you that further requests made under the Act,
for information relating to the incident in which Mr McGartland was shot
and any subsequent information relating to the investigation arising from
the incident, associated legal proceedings, and related matters will not
be acknowledged or responded to.

You should note that following this correspondence, we are not obliged to,
nor do we intend to, take any further steps in relation to this matter or
any further requests that you submit that are deemed to fall into the
remit of vexatious.

How to complain

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Make sure the ICO is aware of the following; http://www.scribd.com/doc/50616601/Sunda...

And this; http://www.scribd.com/doc/47984176/North...

This is corruption in it's most blatant form. Each and every person involved with these requests are party to it. The ICO will see what is going on. It is very simply, Why are NP not answering simply questions concerning my attempted murder case. What are NP hiding?

Dear Northumbria Police,

Given the history of the FOI requests in the Martin McGartland case I did not feel that this request for an internal review will make any difference. I am requesting an internal review of this request.

I am not not surprised that Northumbria Police have once again stated that a request concerning the Martin McGartland case is vexatious. Northumbria Police have yet to produce any evidence or indeed any arguments to back up such a claim,

Section 14 of the FOIA is intended to protect public authorities from those who might abuse the right to request information. It states:
14.—(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
(2) Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making of the current request.

Northumbria Police can not claim that this request is an abuse nor can it claim it has previously complied with this request or any other requests made in the Martin McGartland case. It is noted that Northumbria Police have not made any disclosures of the requested information concerning Martin McGartland's case in this request nor in any others. It is also noted that Northumbria Police have never given any explanations other than claiming all requests in the McGartland case are vexatious. There is very good reason for making such requests in this case, the attempted murder of Martin McGartland and there is a serious purpose or value to all/any such requests. Northumbria Police are using the Act to cover-up corruption by their officers when dealing with Martin McGartland and his attempted murder case, they are in fact using section 14 as an excuse to avoid answering awkward questions concerning failings by their officers.

The ICO has said; "Many previous cases of vexatious requests have been in the context of a longstanding grievance or dispute. However, a request will not automatically be vexatious simply because it is made in the context of a dispute or forms part of a series of requests. There may be genuine reasons for this. For example, a series of successive linked requests may be necessary where disclosures are unclear or raise further questions that the requester could not have foreseen. Similarly, in the context of a dispute, a request may be a reasonable way to obtain new information not otherwise available to the individual. You should not use section 14 as an excuse to avoid awkward questions that have not yet been resolved satisfactorily. You must always look at the effect of the particular request and consider the questions set out below." http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l... Northumbria Police to date have not answered one FOI request nor have they answered any questions concerning the Martin McGartland case, the requests listed on the what do they know pages confirm this to be the case.

I want to place on the record that I am Martin McGartland's partner of 13 years.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Northumbria Police

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

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

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Asher

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

Thank you for your email dated 18 January 2011 in which you requested a
review of the response to your request for access to certain information
which may be held by Northumbria Police.

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

You asked:

"1. How many suspects are currently being sought in relation to
above case?

2. Please could you tell me how long has the longest outstanding
suspect been sought in relation to this case?

3. Has the force used familial DNA testing in relation to above
unsloved case. If so, when was it first used in relation to above case.
How many times has it been used since the june 1999 attack?

4. How many potential ?matches? {as regards to question 3) did the
DNA database provide you with in relation to above case.

5. Please could you supply me with the total cost of the
investigation for the first year starting from 16-06-1999 to 16-06-2000.

6. Please could you supply me with the total current cost of the
investigation for the past 2 years. I would like this information
annually, for the past two years up until the time my request is answered.

7. Please could you supply me with the up-to-date total current
cost of this investigation since 17-06-1999 and until this request is
answered.

8. Please supply full details of all amounts paid by your force in
relation to above case on external legal advice and also external legal
representation between 17-06-99 and until this request is answered. Please
provide a yearly breakdown of the figures and also specify which payments
were counsels fees.

9. Please provide the names of all law firms and individuals,
including counsels, who have supplied such services and/or advice {as
regards to question 8) to Northumbria Police concerning Martin McGartland
and/or the McGartland the attempted murder case between 17-06-1999 and the
date this request is answered."

Your request for review asked:

"Given the history of the FOI requests in the Martin McGartland case I did
not feel that this request for an internal review will make any
difference. I am requesting an internal review of this request.

I am not not surprised that Northumbria Police have once again stated that
a request concerning the Martin McGartland case is vexatious. Northumbria
Police have yet to produce any evidence or indeed any arguments to back up
such a claim,

Section 14 of the FOIA is intended to protect public authorities from
those who might abuse the right to request information. It states:

14.***(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

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

Northumbria Police can not claim that this request is an abuse nor can it
claim it has previously complied with this request or any other requests
made in the Martin McGartland case. It is noted that Northumbria Police
have not made any disclosures of the requested information concerning
Martin McGartland's case in this request nor in any others. It is also
noted that Northumbria Police have never given any explanations other than
claiming all requests in the McGartland case are vexatious. There is very
good reason for making such requests in this case, the attempted murder of
Martin McGartland and there is a serious purpose or value to all/any such
requests. Northumbria Police are using the Act to cover-up corruption by
their officers when dealing with Martin McGartland and his attempted
murder case, they are in fact using section 14 as an excuse to avoid
answering awkward questions concerning failings by their officers.

The ICO has said; "Many previous cases of vexatious requests have been in
the context of a longstanding grievance or dispute. However, a request
will not automatically be vexatious simply because it is made in the
context of a dispute or forms part of a series of requests. There may be
genuine reasons for this. For example, a series of successive linked
requests may be necessary where disclosures are unclear or raise further
questions that the requester could not have foreseen. Similarly, in the
context of a dispute, a request may be a reasonable way to obtain new
information not otherwise available to the individual. You should not use
section 14 as an excuse to avoid awkward questions that have not yet been
resolved satisfactorily. You must always look at the effect of the
particular request and consider the questions set out below."

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Northumbria Police to date have not answered one FOI request nor have they
answered any questions concerning the Martin McGartland case, the requests
listed on the what do they know pages confirm this to be the case.

I want to place on the record that I am Martin McGartland's partner of 13
years."

In response:

Due to the nature of the requests already received on this subject
(manifestly unreasonable), on the 13 November 2009 it was deemed that any
further requests received that were on this subject were also to be
classed as vexatious. It would appear that part of your request falls
into this category and this review has sought to confirm this situation.
It is important to note that it is the request and not the requestor that
can be made vexatious. It is therefore the subject matter of your request
that determines whether it can be deemed as a vexatious request in these
circumstances.

A substantial number of requests have come through the same web-site and
it is apparent that these requestors are acting in concert due to the
similarity, frequency and nature of the requests. You have also confirmed
that you are the partner of Martin McGartland. The request from you is
one of this series of requests received on this subject and accordingly
were classed as obsessive and manifestly unreasonable.

Section 14 - Freedom of Information Act 2000

Please note a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for
information if the request is deemed as vexatious.

Case law states that "In most cases, the vexatious nature of a request
will only emerge after considering the request in its context and
background. As part of that context, the identity of the requester and
past dealings with the public authority can be taken into account." Mr J
Welsh v The Information Commissioner

The Information Commissioner offers guidance on declaring requests as
vexatious and states that "A request may not be vexatious in isolation,
but when considered in context (for example if it is the latest in a long
series of overlapping requests or correspondence) it may form part of a
wider pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious."

Previous requests are a relevant factor when declaring a request as
vexatious. Your request is further evidence of a pattern of behaviour
towards the Force. It is appropriate to note at this time that your
request adds to a pattern of requests made to the public authority. In
this case, the Force has received multiple requests which seek to obtain
information which relates to or has a relevance to the investigation into
the incident. Indeed, the pattern of requests goes back to 2009.

As you are acting in concert with Mr McGartland, it is clear that the
requests submitted are part of a campaign designed to disrupt the normal
business process of the Force, it was therefore appropriate to also class
your request as vexatious.

To assist and help to close this issue I can confirm that there are
processes in place, including victim support that can offer appropriate
limited sharing of information between the Police Service and the victim.
This sharing is fully compliant with relevant legislation and therefore
such a release as you have requested into the public domain lacks serious
purpose or value.

Having concluded that your request is on a significantly similar subject
to another request deemed as vexatious and as your request would cause a
significant burden, is designed to cause disruption and is manifestly
unreasonable and obsessive, it has correctly also been deemed as
vexatious.

To conclude I am satisfied that it was appropriate to issue the vexatious
notice on this subject matter and this remains the position now.
Accordingly Northumbria Police will not acknowledge or reply to any
requests submitted on this subject.

However, in taking this opportunity to re-assess the response you were
originally provided, we are able to provide you with information on this
subject that was released into the public domain in response to a number
of similar questions on this subject. Please note that this information
was made available before this subject was classed as vexatious. To
further assist you and to help close this issue I have attached that
request and its corresponding response below.

This concludes my internal review into your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this
review then it remains open to you to refer this matter to the Information
Commissioner at the following address:

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

Yours sincerely

Hayley Morrison
Disclosure Manager

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

FAO: Ms Hayley Morrison
Disclosure Manager
RE: Under Section 16 of the FOIA, duty to provide advice and assistance.

Dear Ms Morrison

It is noted that you are now claiming in your/Northumbria Police's latest response that request(s) relating to Martin McGartland, his case(s) are 'obsessive' and or 'manifestly unreasonable'. I will deal with this wild claim later in this correspondence.

Northumbria Police also say; "To assist and help to close this issue I can confirm that there are
processes in place, including victim support that can offer appropriate limited sharing of information between the Police Service and the victim." You, Northumbria Police are very well aware that Martin McGartland did indeed contact the local victim support, however, they, the manager in fact, fobbed him off. They did not want to know. this is of course is the norm when it comes to Martin McGartland, his case(s). You will also be aware that Martin McGartland has been writing, as the victim in this case, to both Northumbria Police and also the SIO. However, he has been lied to and fobbed of for the past 12 years. Northumbria Poilice refuse to answer simple questions. They are covering-up and concealing information in the case to hide wrongdoing and failings by their own officers. This of course is why Martin McGartland, myself and others have been making FOI requests. However, Northumbria Police are using the FOIA to hide and cover-up in this case. I note that one of the recommendations in the Sir William Macpherson's report,Stephen Lawrence, case stated that "Freedom of Information Act should apply to all areas of policing, both operational and administrative, subject only to the "substantial harm" test for withholding disclosure." There are of course no issues of "substantial harm" in this matter. The only harm is to Northumbria Police, it's officers, to save them from embarrassment and to cover-up their own failings. That is the only reason why you/Northumbria Police are unlawfully using vexatious notice in this matter, why you/Northumbria Police are refusing to answer questions and release information and documents which ought to be released as a matter of course. It is of course in the public interest that such documents and information be released to the public, more so when there are very serious questions concerning Northumbria Police's handling of the case, their dealings with Martin McGartland and their disgraceful treatment towards Martin McGartland during the past 15 years or so.

You go on to say; "To conclude I am satisfied that it was appropriate to issue the vexatious notice on this subject matter and this remains the position now." However, it was you yourself who dealt with that request at that time. You yourself also issued the following vexatious notice. That was over 18 months ago, on the 13th November 2009; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/54...

It is important to note that you wrote in that vexatious notice that; "I advise that any requests under the Act that are received from you after 4.00pm on Friday 13th November 2009 which are related to those previously received from you will not be considered under the legislation." 'You' meaning Martin McGartland, not me or any other person.

Under Section 16 of the FOIA, duty to provide advice and assistance. Will you/Northumbria Police please clarify your/Northumbria Police's position on this matter, i.e. concerning your original 13/11/2009 vexatious notice.

It is also noted that you don't mention anything at all in your 13/11/2009 vexatious notice regarding that request(s) having been 'obsessive' and or 'manifestly unreasonable' which is now what you/Northumbria Police are now in fact claiming in your latest replies to myself and others.

It is very clear that you/Northumbria Police are breaking and making up the rules as you go along. Northumbria Police are also breaching the FOIA left, right and centre when dealing with requests relating to the Martin McGartland case.

It is also very important that you/Northumbria Police clarify the position regarding the issue of separate vexatious notice(s), i.e. should you/Northumbria Police not be issuing separate vexatious notice(s)to myself and others given the above?

I must ask you/Northumbria Police to clarify your position on this matter.

I look forward to your urgent reply.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Northumbria Police

Dear Ms Asher,

Thank you for your email below. I note the content and I can confirm that
full consideration was given to your request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. The request itself was and remains to be
Vexatious and has been appropriately dealt with in accordance with the
legislation.

The Information Commissioner's Office provides guidance on such matters
and I have set out the specific paragraph from the guidance which will
assist you in interpreting the application of this exemption in this case.
You will see that it clearly states that it is the subject of the request
that is considered in any Vexatious determination and not the applicant
and I can confirm that in respect of your request and any others on the
same subject matter, from any other individual that this is and has been
the case since the original determination was made.

I have also provided further details to assist you should you wish to
access the full guidance.

"An important point is that it is the request, not the requester, that
must be vexatious. You should not automatically refuse a request just
because the individual has caused problems in the past. You must look at
the request itself.

Example case

Example
In Coggins v Information Commissioner EA/2007/0130 (13 May 2008), the
requester suspected that the council had fraudulently charged an elderly
lady for care services not provided. A council investigation, a Committee
for Social Care investigation and the police all found no evidence of
dishonesty. But the requester persisted with the allegations and made 20
requests in 73 letters and 17 postcards over a two-year period. The
Tribunal found the request vexatious because:
*** The volume and haranguing tone of the correspondence indicated that
the request was obsessive, and the requester was not justified in
persisting with his campaign in the light of three independent enquiries.
*** The requests had affected the health and wellbeing of certain officers
having to deal with them.
*** The volume, length and overlapping nature of the requests would be a
distraction from the council***s core functions and impose a significant
burden.
*** The genuine desire to uncover fraud was a serious and proper purpose,
but it did not justify persisting with the campaign to these lengths."

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

I now consider this request closed as an appropriate initial response has
been provided with a further appropriate response provided to you as a
result of your request for internal review. Any further queries in
respect of this request should be directed to the Information
Commissioner's Office.

Kind regards

Hayley

Hayley Morrison
Disclosure Manager
Legal Department
Northumbria Police
Direct Dial: 01661 868715
Email: [email address]

Freedom of Information Mailbox To Hayley Morrison/4209/Northumbria
Sent by: Helen Robbins Police/GB@Northumbria Police,
Michael Cleugh/5517/Northumbria
ext: 68766 Police/GB@Northumbria Police
cc
20/05/2011 08:17 Subject Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Please think of the (FOIA) Request 042/11 - Martin
environment before you print McGartland Investigation [NOT
PROTECTIVELY MARKED][1]Link

From: Jo Asher <[FOI #57993 email]> on
19/05/2011 16:58 CET

To: [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 042/11
- Martin McGartland Investigation [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

FAO: Ms Hayley Morrison
Disclosure Manager
RE: Under Section 16 of the FOIA, duty to provide advice and
assistance.

Dear Ms Morrison

It is noted that you are now claiming in your/Northumbria Police's
latest response that request(s) relating to Martin McGartland, his
case(s) are 'obsessive' and or 'manifestly unreasonable'. I will
deal with this wild claim later in this correspondence.

Northumbria Police also say; "To assist and help to close this
issue I can confirm that there are
processes in place, including victim support that can offer
appropriate limited sharing of information between the Police
Service and the victim." You, Northumbria Police are very well
aware that Martin McGartland did indeed contact the local victim
support, however, they, the manager in fact, fobbed him off. They
did not want to know. this is of course is the norm when it comes
to Martin McGartland, his case(s). You will also be aware that
Martin McGartland has been writing, as the victim in this case, to
both Northumbria Police and also the SIO. However, he has been lied
to and fobbed of for the past 12 years. Northumbria Poilice refuse
to answer simple questions. They are covering-up and concealing
information in the case to hide wrongdoing and failings by their
own officers. This of course is why Martin McGartland, myself and
others have been making FOI requests. However, Northumbria Police
are using the FOIA to hide and cover-up in this case. I note that
one of the recommendations in the Sir William Macpherson's
report,Stephen Lawrence, case stated that "Freedom of Information
Act should apply to all areas of policing, both operational and
administrative, subject only to the "substantial harm" test for
withholding disclosure." There are of course no issues of
"substantial harm" in this matter. The only harm is to Northumbria
Police, it's officers, to save them from embarrassment and to
cover-up their own failings. That is the only reason why
you/Northumbria Police are unlawfully using vexatious notice in
this matter, why you/Northumbria Police are refusing to answer
questions and release information and documents which ought to be
released as a matter of course. It is of course in the public
interest that such documents and information be released to the
public, more so when there are very serious questions concerning
Northumbria Police's handling of the case, their dealings with
Martin McGartland and their disgraceful treatment towards Martin
McGartland during the past 15 years or so.

You go on to say; "To conclude I am satisfied that it was
appropriate to issue the vexatious notice on this subject matter
and this remains the position now." However, it was you yourself
who dealt with that request at that time. You yourself also issued
the following vexatious notice. That was over 18 months ago, on the
13th November 2009;

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/54...

It is important to note that you wrote in that vexatious notice
that; "I advise that any requests under the Act that are received
from you after 4.00pm on Friday 13th November 2009 which are
related to those previously received from you will not be
considered under the legislation." 'You' meaning Martin McGartland,
not me or any other person.

Under Section 16 of the FOIA, duty to provide advice and
assistance. Will you/Northumbria Police please clarify
your/Northumbria Police's position on this matter, i.e. concerning
your original 13/11/2009 vexatious notice.

It is also noted that you don't mention anything at all in your
13/11/2009 vexatious notice regarding that request(s) having been
'obsessive' and or 'manifestly unreasonable' which is now what
you/Northumbria Police are now in fact claiming in your latest
replies to myself and others.

It is very clear that you/Northumbria Police are breaking and
making up the rules as you go along. Northumbria Police are also
breaching the FOIA left, right and centre when dealing with
requests relating to the Martin McGartland case.

It is also very important that you/Northumbria Police clarify the
position regarding the issue of separate vexatious notice(s), i.e.
should you/Northumbria Police not be issuing separate vexatious
notice(s)to myself and others given the above?

I must ask you/Northumbria Police to clarify your position on this
matter.

I look forward to your urgent reply.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd Jo Asher anodiad ()

For Info only. This is a link to the Northumbria Police Notice; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/54...

Northumbria Police have in fact gagged anyone, including Martin McGartland who is this victim in this case, from ever asking questions about this case. this means that no one will ever be able to hold Northumbria Police to account, where is the justice in this?

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

This is not the first time the British State have used the ‘National security’ tactic as an excuse for not giving a full response to controversial questions and allegations concerning their dealings with the 1999 attempted murder of ex- British agent Martin McGartland. This is what they do, they cover-up, they lie, they break the law and they are protecting the IRA terrorists who carried out the shooting of Martin McGartland, they have been doing so for the past 12 years. Just have a look at some of the dirty tricks of the British State; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11yk7p3Kp...
www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Gadawodd Jo Asher anodiad ()

God Forgive Sue Sim and Northumbria Police for their treatment against Marty McGartland. Thank God for the ICO. The Information Commissioner confirms that Freedom of Information request for information on Martin McGartland shooting case was NOT 'Vexatious' ... http://www.scribd.com/doc/71155997/Decis...