Marty Mcgartland

Jeff Hayward 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 Northumbria Police,
I am writing to you as regards a friend of mine who was shot and nearly killed in an incident in Whitley Bay in 1999.I would like to ask that why after a period of over ten years that no-one has been held accountable for this matter and where the investigation is currently up to as regards this 'attempted murder,i await your reply to such a serious incident !!

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Thank you for your email received yesterday 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 16 December 2010.

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,
Just to enquire how much longer any information will be as regards the attempted murder of Marty Mcgartland and where you are currently up to with said investigation in bringing the the culprits to justice.I would very well imagine that over an 11 yr period you have gathered extensive evidence as regards said perpatrators and are hopefully very soon going to charge and convict said perpatrators

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

Northumbria Police

Mr Hayward

As advised in your acknowledgement below, the due date for your response
should be provided by 16th December 2010.

Regards

Jan McEwan
Disclosure Section

From: Jeff Hayward <[FOI #52186 email]> on
06/12/2010 05:01

To: [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 0738/10 -
Martin McGartland Investigation [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

Dear Northumbria Police,
Just to enquire how much longer any information will be as regards
the attempted murder of Marty Mcgartland and where you are
currently up to with said investigation in bringing the the
culprits to justice.I would very well imagine that over an 11 yr
period you have gathered extensive evidence as regards said
perpatrators and are hopefully very soon going to charge and
convict said perpatrators

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

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 18 November 2010 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:

I am writing to you as regards a friend (Marty Mcgartland) of mine who was
shot and nearly killed in an incident in Whitley Bay in 1999.

1. I would like to ask that why after a period of over ten years
that no-one has been held accountable for this matter, and

2. Where the investigation is currently up to as regards this
attempted murder,

I await your reply to such a serious incident !!

In response:

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

1. This is not valid under the Freedom of Information act, as you
are asking for an opinion on why no one has been caught.

2. The case is currently classed as open, Northumbria Police has
the facility of a review team for such cases and a review was concluded in
2007. The investigation remains live and throughout the case particular
lines of enquiry and the opportunity for further investigation continue to
be explored.

To further assist, I have attached a link to a release given on
the Northumbria Police web-site regarding the case which may be of some
assistance to you.

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/news_an...

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

How to complain

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Dear Northumbria Police,
Many thanks for your prompt reply as regards said matter (Attempted murder of Martin McGartland) although i ask for some further clarification over this case with respect.......

You told me a review was 'concluded' in 2007 as regards said matter...

1)Please can you furnish me with evidence that said review was carried out and by whom i.e Names and ranks of officers involved.

2)Can you furnish me with the policy documentation as regards these said reviews.

3)What were the findings of said review ?

4)What do you mean by the term 'such cases' ?

5)What date was said review carried out in 2007 ?

6)Can you tell me why said review has taken 8 years to be carried out ?

7)Have Northumbria Police established any connection that this was a terrorist attack ?

8)Are Northumbria Police treating this as a terrorist attack ?

9)DNA and forensic evidence was recovered from the scene of this attempted murder on Mr McGartlands life therefore have you ever had a match or close match as regards said evidence ?

10)As a result of your disclosure over said review can i ask when there is likely to be another review held over said investigation ?
Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

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 13 January 2011.

Please note that this request will be aggregated with your previous
request (FOI 0738/10 refers) for costing/time purposes as the subject area
is the same.

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

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

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

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

I can now advise you that the new date for the provision of the
information is 10 February 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
Disclosure Section
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/

Dear Northumbria Police,
Thank you for your reply but i am disappointed .This is not good enough as you have breached the act by failing to deal with my request within the statutory time frame of twenty working days.If i am not furnished with this information i will be complaining to the information Commissioner.There is a further breach of this act by not confirming or denying if you hold the information i requested.The Act states that the applicant must be informed if this information is held and then in turn have the information made available to the applicant.

You have kept me waiting until the statutory time limit and could have informed me sooner and i believe this is a delaying tactic which is wholly unacceptable.I will be also bringing this to the attention of the commissioners.I am sorry but i will not consent to a further month for you to deal with what is a straight forward Freedom of information request.This should have been dealt with by this time as information on the subject matter will be easily accessible.

I find it hard to comprehend that all of the information i requested has not yet been released and again would now expect that you release all of the relevant information to me immediately.

I would like you to furnish me with information that you hold concerning the following ...

1) Please can you furnish me with evidence that said review was
carried out and by whom i.e Names and ranks of officers involved.

2) Can you furnish me with the policy documentation as regards these
said reviews.

3) What were the findings of said review ?

4) What do you mean by the term 'such cases' ?

5) What date was said review carried out in 2007 ?

6) Can you tell me why said review has taken 8 years to be carried
out ?

7) Have Northumbria Police established any connection that this was
a terrorist attack ?

8) Are Northumbria Police treating this as a terrorist attack ?

9) DNA and forensic evidence was recovered from the scene of this
attempted murder on Mr McGartlands life therefore have you ever had
a match or close match as regards said evidence ?

10) As a result of your disclosure over said review can i ask when
there is likely to be another review held over said investigation ?

I do not believe you have adequately explained to me why you are unable to deal with my FOI request within the statutory time limit.Please can you do so and i must direct you to reply to each of my numbered requests when doing so.Could you explain why you think it will take up to forty days to deal with my request.

I would lastly ask you who is advising you when you are dealing with my FOI requests on this matter and could you furnish me this information also as this would be really useful.....:ie Officers and ranks of those involved many thanks

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

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 12 December 2010 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:

Many thanks for your prompt reply as regards said matter (Attempted murder
of Martin McGartland) although i ask for some further clarification over
this case with respect.......

You told me a review was concluded in 2007 as regards said matter...

1. Please can you furnish me with evidence that said review was carried out
and by whom i.e Names and ranks of officers involved.

2. Can you furnish me with the policy documentation as regards these said
reviews.

3. What were the findings of said review ?

4. What do you mean by the term such cases ?

5. What date was said review carried out in 2007 ?

6. Can you tell me why said review has taken 8 years to be carried out ?

7. Have Northumbria Police established any connection that this was a
terrorist attack ?

8. Are Northumbria Police treating this as a terrorist attack ?

9. DNA and forensic evidence was recovered from the scene of this attempted
murder on Mr McGartlands life therefore have you ever had a match or
close match as regards said evidence ?

10. As a result of your disclosure over said review can i ask when there
is likely to be another review held over said investigation ?

In response:

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

As advised earlier this request has been aggregated with your previous
request (FOI 0738/10 refers) for costing/time purposes as the subject area
is the same.

Your request is regarding an ongoing investigation, the Disclosure Section
has received a number of other requests regarding this subject matter. Due
to the vexatious 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. Your request falls into this category. It is important to
note that it is the request and not the requestor that can be made
vexatious. It is 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. The request from you is
one of this series of requests received on this subject and accordingly can
be 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.

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 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 also been deemed as vexatious.

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 may 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.

(See attached file: FOI Complaint Rights.doc)

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 - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

Dear Northumbria Police,
Thank you for your prompt reply but in reference to your suppositions as regards my reasons for sending these FOI requests in the first place i find them 'distasteful' and completely without basis.You stated......

'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'.

I would question as how asking for information which should already be on file and should only need to be retrieved,which should be a job requiring only the time of one person for a limited period,can be classed as (and i quote) 'Part of a campaign designed to disrupt the normal business process of the force' as said in above paragraph.

You said.....
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.

I did not contact Northumbria Police Authority until the latter part of 2010 as regards said case and you made no such indication as to my FOI request being of a 'vexatious' nature even though you are now indicating to me that from 13th Nov 2009 any requests as regards said case would be regarded as vexatious in nature.In fact you actually made it clear that you required an 'extension' to the 13th Feb 2011 as regards my FOI request.

Lastly,to say that this a a campaign designed to 'burden',disrupt and is 'obsessive', is a disgraceful attempt at character assassination when only the 'truth' of this case is being sought in an 'honest fashion' through the 'medium' of the FOI act.

Seeking information as to this case should not be (and i quote)......'Manifestly unreasonable'

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

Dear Northumbria Police,
The Information Commissioner’s office states that.
Is the request vexatious?

The term “vexatious” is intended to have its ordinary meaning and
there is no link with legal definitions from other contexts (eg
vexatious litigants).
Deciding whether a request is vexatious is a flexible balancing
exercise, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.
There is no rigid test or definition, and it will often be easy to
recognise. The key question is whether the request is likely to
cause distress, disruption or irritation, without any proper or
justified cause.

To help you identify a vexatious request, we recommend that you
consider the following questions, taking into account the context
and history of the request:

• Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
• Is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to
staff?
• Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
• Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
• Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?

To judge a request vexatious, you should usually be able to make
relatively strong arguments under more than one of these headings.

Can you explain to me why my request is 'vexatious' in nature with reference to commissioners above guidelines to FOI requests.

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

Dear Northumbria Police,
I too would refer you to the following;

Section 77 of the FOIA Offence of altering etc. records with intent
to prevent disclosure.

(1) Where—

(a) a request for information has been made to a public authority,
and

(b) under section 1 of this Act or section 7 of the M1Data
Protection Act 1998, the applicant would have been entitled
(subject to payment of any fee) to communication of any information
in accordance with that section, any person to whom this subsection
applies is guilty of an offence if he alters, defaces, blocks,
erases, destroys or conceals any record held by the public
authority, with the intention of preventing the disclosure by that
authority of all, or any part, of the information to the
communication of which the applicant would have been entitled.

(2) Subsection (1) applies to the public authority and to any
person who is employed by, is an officer of, or is subject to the
direction of, the public authority.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on
summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard
scale.

(4) No proceedings for an offence under this section shall be
instituted—

(a) in England or Wales, except by the Commissioner or by or with
the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions;

(b) in Northern Ireland, except by the Commissioner or by or with
the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern
Ireland.

Link; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Northumbria Police have deliberately withheld this
information from me. Section 77 of the Act as above, states that a
criminal offence is committed if an authority alters, defaces,
blocks, erases, destroys or conceals any information with the
intention of preventing the applicant from receiving any of the
information he is entitled to receive. I too will be asking the
Commissioner to investigate this matter.

I must ask Northumbria Police to stop breaching the FOI Act and also to withdraw their very damaging and wild claims and statements which they have made against me.

I too will be seeking legal advice on this matter and I am reserving all my legal rights. The information which I have requested must now be released without furher delay.

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

Dear Northumbria Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Northumbria Police's handling of my FOI request 'Marty Mcgartland'.

Northumbria Police are claiming my request is of a 'vexatious' nature and made no such indication of this in my earlier FOI requests even though they stated any FOI requests regarding 'Attempted murder of Mr Martin Mcgartland' would be deemed as 'vexatious' from the date of 13th Nov 2009.Mr Mcgartland was not aware of my original request and i would ask my FOI requests to be treated as such and not in concert as implied...

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

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

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

Dear Mr Hayward

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:

Many thanks for your prompt reply as regards said matter (Attempted murder
of Martin McGartland) although i ask for some further clarification over
this case with respect.......

You told me a review was concluded in 2007 as regards said matter...

1. Please can you furnish me with evidence that said review was
carried out and by whom i.e Names and ranks of officers involved.

2. Can you furnish me with the policy documentation as regards
these said reviews.

3. What were the findings of said review ?

4. What do you mean by the term such cases ?

5. What date was said review carried out in 2007 ?

6. Can you tell me why said review has taken 8 years to be carried
out ?

7. Have Northumbria Police established any connection that this was
a terrorist attack ?

8. Are Northumbria Police treating this as a terrorist attack ?

9. DNA and forensic evidence was recovered from the scene of this
attempted murder on Mr McGartlands life therefore have you ever had a
match or close match as regards said evidence ?

10. As a result of your disclosure over said review can i ask when
there is likely to be another review held over said investigation ?

Your request for review asked:

I am writing to request an internal review of Northumbria Police's
handling of my FOI request 'Marty Mcgartland'.

Northumbria Police are claiming my request is of a 'vexatious' nature and
made no such indication of this in my earlier FOI requests even though
they stated any FOI requests regarding 'Attempted murder of Mr Martin
Mcgartland' would be deemed as ***vexatious' from the date of 13th Nov
2009.Mr Mcgartland was not aware of my original request and i would ask my
FOI requests to be treated as such and not in concert as implied...

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.

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 more 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.

An authority is not obliged to deal with requests that are manifestly
unreasonable or obsessive. The Information Commissioner***s 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 Commissioner***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.

Case law has also emphasised that previous requests may be a relevant
factor when considering the declaration of vexatiousness ***in considering
whether a request is vexatious, the number or previous requests and the
demands they place on the public authority***s time and resources may be a
relevant factor***. Gowers v the Information Commissioner & London
Borough of Camden [EA/2007/0114]. 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 requests are 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. Whilst
you claim that Mr McGartland has no knowledge of your requests, it is in
the public domain that you are the administrator and a member of an
ongoing internet campaign and its intentions are quite clearly set out on
a dedicated internet site:

http://www.causes.com/causes/548596-we-t...

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.

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.

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
Legal Department
Northumbria Police
Direct Dial: 01661 868715

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,
Many thanks for your reply.I have never claimed Mr McGartland was NOT aware of my FOI requests i said Mr McGartland was NOT aware of my original request to your Department just to clear that matter up.Also being an administrator on one of Mr McGartlands 'Cause pages' does not constitute your claim that myself and Mr McGartland are 'in league' with each other.Mr McGartland does not have his hand 'up my back' as you seem to be implying.I have personally studied all available information on this matter which is in the public domain and its obvious that information as regards this shooting is not being 'acted on'.This 'stinks' of 'Not rocking the boat in Northern Ireland' because of the 'peace process'.May i remind your goodselves that a crime has been committed and its the duty of the police to solve said crimes regardless of how 'distasteful' this process may be in this case.12 years old now,a long time,far too long.My wife worked with GMP and my father was a 'Senior' ranking officer with GMP a copper of 33yrs standing.Although my father has sadly passed on i fully intend to raise this issue with friends of my father of a similar rank to ask for their advice as regards said matters who are still serving(with respect)

I will be taking this matter to the IPCC but certainly not NP Complaints department as the investigating officer in Mr McGartlands case is also in charge of your complaints department,how convenient !!

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

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?

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

The Home Office, HMG, Northumbria Police, The PPS, The PSNI, IPCC, CPS, ACPO, MI5, NIO, Strathclyde Police and many other are up to their eye-balls in it, the lies, the cover-up and the law-breaking is going on almost daily. They are doing this to protect IRA terrorists and also to cover-up their own wrong-doing. The following are just a few;

The Liars within the NIO are at it too. They are covering-up their own swrong-doing and also protecting IRA terrorists; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/79...

Home Office Lies and Cover-Up to protect IRA terrorists; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/79... security' what Poppycock.

Home Office, HMG covering-up information relating to gun used in Martin McGartland shooting, 'national security' again; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/at...

I'm dizzy, these HMG lies of 'national security', all to cover-up their own wrong-doing and to protect IRA terrorists; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/58...

Not again, yet more 'National Security', this time from Strathclyde Police. they too are involved in the cover-up; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/77...

Brass Necks. Read more on HMG cover-up of an IRA kidnapping and also an IRA shooting. Read the FOI requests here; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/marti...

The 1999 IRA Shooting of Martin McGartland is being covered-up by HMG; https://www.facebook.com/MartinMcGartland

The 1991 IRA kidnapping of Martin McGartland is also being covered up, read more here: https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Chief-...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55567240/Top-P...

Long Runs The Fox. Support Marty here; http://www.causes.com/causes/548596

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

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

Dear Northumbria Police,
The ICO has now confirmed in the 26th October 2011 Decision Notice (Ref: FS50378155) that;

As stated in my 15th January 2011 Decision

1. This request is NOT 'Vexatious'.

2. The request is NOT 'Manifestly unreasonable'.

3. The request was NOT designed to 'burden',disrupt,

However, all those within NP were very well aware that this request was none of the above. NP have been shown to be using every trick in the book to hide, conceal and to cover-up their own wrongdoing.

The ICO's Decision Notice also states that NP must now deal with this request within 35 calendar days.

I am requesting that Northumbria Police deal with this request via this (whatdotheyknow.com) site.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Northumbria Police have got more front than M&S, 'Vexatious'? We all knew it was not 'Vexatious', Northumbria Police knew all along the requests were not 'Vexatious'. However, there is no easier way for NP to cover-up, they just say it is 'Vexatious'. The ICO has now confirmed that this request is NOT 'Vexatious'. The ICO has given NP 35 calendar days to deal with this request. I for one can't wait to see what NP do next, they will Huff, Puff and Bluff as they always do. They can run but they can't hide. www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

The Decision Notice, Ref: FS50378155 - dated 26th Oct 2011, was issued against Sue Sim - Northumbria Police by ICO in this case. It can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71155997/Decis...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

SEE HERE: http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resource...

Complaint Upheld - NOT 'vexatious' as Sue Sim (Northumbria Police) were claiming.

Case Ref: FS50378155

Date: 26/10/2011

Public Authority: Northumbria Police

Summary: The complainant made a request to Northumbria Police (the force) in November 2010 for information relating to the force’s investigation into the attempted murder of Martin McGartland. In December 2010 he made a further related request for additional information relating to the same investigation. The force also received a number of similar related requests on the same subject at around the same time. The force refused the complainant’s request on the basis that, as it was part of a campaign, the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the force incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the request. He requires the public authority to respond to the request in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act within 35 calendar days.

Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 14 - Complaint Upheld
View PDF of Decision Notice FS50378155

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Sue Sim and Northumbria Police - up to their old tricks yet again. Request relating to Martin McGartland requests to Northumbria Police is Upheld by Information Commissioner, see here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/72333438/Sue-S...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

On the 26th of October 2011 the Information Commisioner issued a Decision Notice (FS50378155), link here; http://www.scribd.com/doc/71155997/Decis...

The Information Commisioner Upheld the complaint, furthermore, the Information Commisioner stated that the request was not 'vexatious' (which is what Northumbria Police had been claiming).

The Information Commisioner also stated that; "The force refused the complainant’s request on the basis that, as it was part of a campaign, the request was vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act. The Commissioner finds that the force incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the request. He requires the public authority to respond to the request in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act within 35 calendar days."

Northumbria Police should have dealt with this request by the 1st December 2011. They have not done so. Northumbria Police are not only breaking the law they are also making a mockery out of the Freedom of Information Act and also the ICO. Why is the Information Commisioner (and ICO) allowing this to happen?

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Dear Northumbria Police,
You were specifically given 35 calender days to answer this freedom of information request by the ICO.The ICO ruled you were in breach of the act by deeming my request as ' vexatious '.The decision by the ICO was made to yourselves on 26th October 2011 and you are way past the 35 day time limit.

You are now blatantly ignoring a decision notice made in my favour by the ICO on the above date.This is a complete disgrace and shows a serious 'lack' of professionalism on your part !

Are you going to keep breaking the law or are you going to answer this freedom of information request as instructed to do so by the ICO ?

I have contacted the ICO to indicate Northumbria Police's flagrant disregard of the law !

Ignoring this matter will NOT make it go away !

I request your reply be posted on this site,whatdotheyknow.com

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Hayward

I apologise for the delay in supplying you with a new response and hope it
has not caused you any inconvenience.

A revised response is supplied below.
Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

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:

Many thanks for your prompt reply as regards said matter (Attempted murder
of Martin McGartland) although I ask for some further clarification over
this case with respect.......

You told me a review was concluded in 2007 as regards said matter...

1.        Please can you furnish me with evidence that said review was
carried out and by whom i.e Names and ranks of officers involved.

2.        Can you furnish me with the policy documentation as regards
these said reviews.

3.        What were the findings of said review ?

4.        What do you mean by the term such cases ?

5.        What date was said review carried out in 2007 ?

6.        Can you tell me why said review has taken 8 years to be carried
out ?

7.        Have Northumbria Police established any connection that this was
a terrorist attack ?

8.        Are Northumbria Police treating this as a terrorist attack ?

9.        DNA and forensic evidence was recovered from the scene of this
attempted murder on Mr McGartlands life therefore have you ever had a
match or close match as regards said evidence ?

10.        As a result of your disclosure over said review can i ask when
there is likely to be another review held over said investigation ?

In response:

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

Questions 1, 3, 7, 8, 9 relate to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Section 30 of the Act (Investigations & Proceedings by Public Authorities)
states that information is exempt information if it has at any time been
held for the purposes of any investigation.  This exemption is a qualified
and class based exemption and accordingly Northumbria Police does not need
to carry out a harm test for this exemption.

As section 30 is a qualified exemption the application of a public
interest test is required and I have set this out below.

Public Interest Test under Section 30

For Disclosure:

Accountability
Disclosure of information about how Northumbria Police conducts its
functions could enhance the accountability of the Force and its individual
officers in the performance of their respective duties.  

Public Awareness and Debate
Disclosure of information about issues of concern can assist individuals
to make informed decisions on issues that are relevant to them.  The
community at large may benefit from disclosure as this may encourage
accurate and informed public debate.  It would also correct rumour and
speculation and provide confidence in the Force's ability to investigate
any alleged offences.

Against Disclosure:

Investigations
It is the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) view that
information relating to investigations will rarely be disclosed under the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Whilst such
information may be released in order to serve a core policing purpose (ie,
to protect life and property and/or assist in prevention and detection of
crime and/or in the apprehension and prosecution of offenders), it will
only be disclosed if there are strong public interest considerations
favouring disclosure.  The further the considerations favouring disclosure
are from a tangible community benefit, the lighter the considerations will
be.  Such disclosure could undermine any ongoing and future investigations
and potentially cause damage to the criminal justice process.

Human Rights, Morals and Ethics
Northumbria Police has a duty to ensure all investigations are dealt with
fairly and equally.  It is important that any investigation is conducted
with regard to confidentiality and privacy.  The public interest would not
be served if a disclosure breaches the obligations placed on an authority
under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to
life, fair trial and privacy.  

Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Service
The current or future law enforcement function of the Police Service would
be undermined or compromised by release of the requested information.
 Disclosure would prejudice future effective investigations and would
cause damage to the service and the community.  

Flow of Information to the Service
It is in the public interest that members of the public are not inhibited
in any way from providing information to Northumbria Police.  The public
need to retain confidence in the Force in order to allow us to gather
information and perform our public service function.
 
Balancing Test

When considering applications under the Freedom of information Act,
information should be disclosed unless the reasoned application of the
exemptions and public interest considerations favours non-disclosure.  I
have analysed the competing arguments and weighed up the community benefit
and opportunity for debate that disclosure of this information may
provide.  However, I consider that the release of information which
relates to ongoing investigations would have a huge impact on the ability
of Northumbria police to conduct effective investigations in the future.
 We must seek to protect our core policing function and not disclose
information which could potentially undermine the whole criminal justice
process.  Disclosure could actually adversely affect an ongoing
investigation. In this case the public interest is significantly weaker
whilst the investigations are still ongoing.

Decision

I have carefully considered your request and I have decided that on
balance it is in the public interest to withhold this part of the
requested information.  It is my view that provision of this information
would not be beneficial to the community as a whole and could actually
impede what is an ongoing investigation.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, you should
consider this a refusal for that specific part of your request.

2.        There is no recorded Northumbria Police Force policy on the
review of open cases.

4.        "Such cases" would be open cases.

5.        The review was conducted at the end of 2006 to the beginning of
2007.

6.        This is not valid under the Freedom of Information Act, as you
are asking for an opinion on why the review took the length of time it
did.

10.        There is no recorded information regarding when a further
review would be carried out.  The opportunity for further investigation
continue to be explored.

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

How to complain

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

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,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Northumbria Police's handling of my FOI request 'Marty Mcgartland'.

You have still not dealt with this request properly.
Your reasons for withholding requested information is flawed.Please except this as a request for an internal review.

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

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward

Northumbria Police

We acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of the
revised 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

Internal Review - Freedom of Information Request 815/10 - Martin
McGartland Investigation

Dear Mr Hayward

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

Thank you for your email dated the 31st January 2012 and please accept my
apologies in not responding to you sooner.  The reason for delay is that
my Unit and myself have experienced extremely high levels of work.

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:

Many thanks for your prompt reply as regards said matter (Attempted murder
of Martin McGartland) although i ask for some further clarification over
this case with respect.......

You told me a review was 'concluded' in 2007 as regards said matter...

1.        Please can you furnish me with evidence that said review was
carried out and by whom i.e Names and ranks of officers involved.

2.        Can you furnish me with the policy documentation as regards
these said reviews.

3.        What were the findings of said review ?

4.        What do you mean by the term 'such cases' ?

5.        What date was said review carried out in 2007 ?

6.        Can you tell me why said review has taken 8 years to be carried
out ?

7.        Have Northumbria Police established any connection that this was
a terrorist attack ?

8.        Are Northumbria Police treating this as a terrorist attack ?

9.        DNA and forensic evidence was recovered from the scene of this
attempted murder on Mr McGartlands life therefore have you ever had a
match or close match as regards said evidence ?

10.  As a result of your disclosure over said review can i ask when there
is likely to be another review held over said investigation ?

In response:

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

Questions 1, 3, 7, 8, 9 relate to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Section 30 of the Act (Investigations & Proceedings by Public Authorities)
states that information is exempt information if it has at any time been
held for the purposes of any investigation.  This exemption is a qualified
and class based exemption and accordingly Northumbria Police does not need
to carry out a harm test for this exemption.

As section 30 is a qualified exemption the application of a public
interest test is required and I have set this out below.

Public Interest Test under Section 30

For Disclosure:

Accountability
Disclosure of information about how Northumbria Police conducts its
functions could enhance the accountability of the Force and its individual
officers in the performance of their respective duties.

Public Awareness and Debate
Disclosure of information about issues of concern can assist individuals
to make informed decisions on issues that are relevant to them.  The
community at large may benefit from disclosure as this may encourage
accurate and informed public debate.  It would also correct rumour and
speculation and provide confidence in the Force's ability to investigate
any alleged offences.

Against Disclosure:

Investigations
It is the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) view that
information relating to investigations will rarely be disclosed under the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  Whilst such
information may be released in order to serve a core policing purpose (ie,
to protect life and property and/or assist in prevention and detection of
crime and/or in the apprehension and prosecution of offenders), it will
only be disclosed if there are strong public interest considerations
favouring disclosure.  The further the considerations favouring disclosure
are from a tangible community benefit, the lighter the considerations will
be.  Such disclosure could undermine any ongoing and future investigations
and potentially cause damage to the criminal justice process.

Human Rights, Morals and Ethics
Northumbria Police has a duty to ensure all investigations are dealt with
fairly and equally.  It is important that any investigation is conducted
with regard to confidentiality and privacy.  The public interest would not
be served if a disclosure breaches the obligations placed on an authority
under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to
life, fair trial and privacy.

Efficient and Effective Conduct of the Service
The current or future law enforcement function of the Police Service would
be undermined or compromised by release of the requested information.
 Disclosure would prejudice future effective investigations and would
cause damage to the service and the community.

Flow of Information to the Service
It is in the public interest that members of the public are not inhibited
in any way from providing information to Northumbria Police.  The public
need to retain confidence in the Force in order to allow us to gather
information and perform our public service function.
 
Balancing Test

When considering applications under the Freedom of information Act,
information should be disclosed unless the reasoned application of the
exemptions and public interest considerations favours non-disclosure.  I
have analysed the competing arguments and weighed up the community benefit
and opportunity for debate that disclosure of this information may
provide.  However, I consider that the release of information which
relates to ongoing investigations would have a huge impact on the ability
of Northumbria police to conduct effective investigations in the future.
 We must seek to protect our core policing function and not disclose
information which could potentially undermine the whole criminal justice
process.  Disclosure could actually adversely affect an ongoing
investigation.  In this case the public interest is significantly weaker
whilst the investigations are still ongoing.

Decision

I have carefully considered your request and I have decided that on
balance it is in the public interest to withhold this part of the
requested information.  It is my view that provision of this information
would not be beneficial to the community as a whole and could actually
impede what is an ongoing investigation.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, you should
consider this a refusal for that specific part of your request.

2.        There is no recorded Northumbria Police Force policy on the
review of open cases.

4.        "Such cases" would be open cases.

5.        The review was conducted at the end of 2006 to the beginning of
2007.

6.        This is not valid under the Freedom of Information Act, as you
are asking for an opinion on why the review took the length of time it
did.

10.        There is no recorded information regarding when a further
review would be carried out.  The opportunity for further investigation
continue to be explored.

Internal Review

I note that you have requested that a review of the response provided to
you on the 13th December 2011 as you believe the reasons for withholding
the information are flawed.

You will note that from our response that questions 1, 3, 7, 8 and 9
relate to an ongoing criminal investigation and in the response provided
to you, Section 30 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 was applied in
respect of this information.

Questions:

1.        Please can you furnish me with the evidence that the said review
was carried our and by whom.  i.e. names and Ranks of Officers involved.

        I can confirm that as we have already advised you, a review of
this particular case was carried out at the end of 2006 and carried on
into the beginning of 2007.  I can further confirm that it is my view that
this information is not exempt information as previously advised and
accordingly, I can advise you that this review was undertaken by Detective
Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson.

3.        What were the findings of the said review?

7.        Have Northumbria Police established any connection that this was
a terrorist attack?

8.        Are Northumbria Police treating this as a terrorist attack?

9.        DNA and forensic evidence was recovered from the scene of this
attempted murder on Mr McGartlands life, therefore have you ever had a
match or close match as regards said evidence?

I will review the response to questions 3, 7, 8 and 9 collectively given
that they all relate directly to information vital to the ongoing
investigation into the shooting of Martin McGartland.

I note that Michael Cleugh applied Section 30 of the Freedom of the
Information Act 2000 in respect of withholding information in his response
to this part of your request.  Section 30 applies to Investigations and
Proceedings by Public Authorities and covers information that is or has
been held for the purposes of a criminal investigation.  The Information
Commissioner provides guidance on this matter and states that the
exemption is divided into two parts.  The first part covers information
which has at any time been held by a public authority for any of the
following purposes:

Investigations into whether a person should be charged with an offence
Investigations into whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of
it
Investigations which may lead the authority to initiate criminal
proceedings
Criminal proceedings.

The phrase "at any time" means that information is exempt if it relates to
ongoing, closed or abandoned investigation.  The Information Commissioner
goes onto advise that a critical issue in such matters, is likely to be
the timing of disclosure and the public interest in the disclosure of
information is likely to be weaker while the investigation is being
carried out.  I accept that there is a considerable public interest in
criminal cases and seeing that justice is done and there are occasions
when this factor favours disclosure, for instance where there is a well
reported suspicion that justice was not done either to an accused person
or a victim.  I further accept that Public Authorities should not assume
that they should not release all information relating to ongoing
investigations.  Much depends on the effect of disclosure and there is a
stronger case for maintaining the exemption where the confidentiality of
the information's critical to the success of the investigation.

The Commissioner notes that in order for Section 30 to be engaged, the
information must relate to a specific or particular investigation and is
not for investigations in general.  This is supported by the Information
Tribunal Case Toms v The Information Commissioner (EA.2005/0027).   The
Commissioner accepts that where the information withheld under Section 30
relates to a specific investigation or operation which has been or is
being carried out by a Force, then the exemption is engaged. In this
particular case, it has been well documented that Northumbria Police
continue to robustly investigate the matter, with a review of the
investigation being undertaken in 2006 and into 2007 with further
publicity at the ten year anniversary where there was a plea for anyone
with any information to come forward and assist the police with their
enquiries.

To reveal the outcomes of this review which may identify further lines of
enquiry and any information which is being actively investigated would
prejudice the ongoing criminal investigation and impede the flow of
critical and relevant information to the police as a whole, but
specifically with regards to this investigation.

Taking all of the above into account, I confirm that my decision following
the review of the exempted information is that the application of Section
30 (1) has been appropriately applied and I am not in a position to
provide further information to you as requested at this time.

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

Hayley Morrison
Disclosure Manager
Legal Department
Northumbria Police
Direct Dial:  01661 868715
Email:  hayley[email address]
[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,
Thank you for your reply.I would like to bring the following paragraph from your response above to your attention,

To reveal the outcomes of this review which may identify further lines of
enquiry and any information which is being actively investigated would
prejudice the ongoing criminal investigation and impede the flow of
critical and relevant information to the police as a whole, but
specifically with regards to this investigation.

This is the thing,what investigation ???

Northumbria police/Det Chief Supt Thomson has stated
'"Over time, word can leak out and be talked about. People's loyalties can change a lot in eleven years, and people may now be prepared to help us - it's a long time for people to keep silent about something like this'.

If the above statement by Mr Thomson is the extent of Northumbria Polices ' investigation ' then i would hazard a good guess they will have more chance of platting fog.

Yours faithfully,

Jeff Hayward