My July 2011 Complaints against Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, Head of PSD

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

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

Gwrthodwyd y cais gan Northumbria Police.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Sir or Madam,

On the 2nd July 2011 I asked NP in an email for information and documents relating to complaints I made against Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, Head of PSD. I also asked for copies of all correspondence sent to IPCC by NP concerning those complaints as well as all replies from the IPCC. This morning (1st Sept 2011) NP sent the following email to my personal email account. Please ensure that this matter is dealt with via the What do they know website.

1. Will NP explain why it has taken them from 2nd July 2011 until the 1st of Sept 2011 just to tell me this request is 'vexatious'?

You write in your email (01/09/2011) to me that " 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.

2. What has the above or indeed any requests got to do with NP or this/other requests I have made to them concerning my 1999 shooting or concerning complaint I have made against NP officers? (All FOI requests made by me to Department of Justice (Northern Ireland), The Public Prosecution Service or others relate only to my 1991 IRA kidnapping. They have nothing at all to do with the matter NP are dealing with, my 1999 shooting.

3. Are NP now saying that I am making FOI requests to; ' ... to disrupt the normal business process (the
ongoing investigation)..' as in the investigation in to my own shooting, an attack in which I was shot at least 6 times. Is that what NP are now claiming?

4. As you pointed out within your reply, this request relates to complaints I made with the past month or so, in July 2011. They relate to, I say, wrong-doing by Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, Head of PSD and others, in that he others leaked information about my shooting/ the investigation to the News of the World in July 2010; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ma... how can NP claim that this request is also 'vexatious'?

5. Am I wasting my time asking for an Internal Review, given what is included in your reply) or should I save a lot of time and make a complaint to the ICO now?

6, NP also say in their reply of today that; '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.' Please supply with all information on where I as the victim in this case can get answers to simple questions about my attempted murder case. Where can I get such information when Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson and Sue Sim (and others) are covering up in my case?

Your reply to me of 1st Sept 2011;

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

Thank you for your email dated 2nd July 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:

Please supply me with copies of all information and documents under Freedom of Information Act concerning these latest complaints, all internal correspondence and also correspondence from NP, its officers to IPCC and its replies concerning these latest complaints. the only complaints that NP are dealing with relating to me, those which I made during the month of July 2011.

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 requests from yourself and others dating from September 2009 onwards, many of these 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 Freedom of Information requests on this subject matter.

Section 14 (1)- 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 believed 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.

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.

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

FOI Complaint Rights.doc
29K View Download

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Further info regard the Northumbria Police, HMG cover-up into my attempted murder. Northumbria Police and HMG have for 12 years now lied, covered-up and protected IRA terrorists involved in my 1999 attempted murder;

https://www.facebook.com/MartinMcGartland

https://www.facebook.com/MartinMcGartlan...

https://www.facebook.com/MartinMcGartlan...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

For further info search for Martin McGartland Northumbria Police on facebook, google, you tube or anywhere on the net.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

The delay in dealing with this request and the ignoring of correspondence shows that the FOI/DPA dept are covering-up and protecting Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, The Head of NP's PSD.

If I do not get a proper reply to this request within the next 5 working days I will be making a complaint to the ICO concerning this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) 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

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

This is a request for an Internal review.

Please also send your reply, the one you emailed to my personal email, to this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Sue Sim and Northumbria Police said FOI request relating to Martin McGartland attempted murder case was 'Vexatious'. The Information Commissioner has issued a Decision Notice against Sue Sim and Northumbria Police which states, '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.' That complain was upheld by the Information-Commissioner, Decision Notice: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72333438/Sue-S...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

On the 18th November 2011 I wrote to you as follows;

"This is a request for an Internal review. Please also send your reply, the one you emailed to my personal email, to this request."

Will you now deal with this matter and let me have your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

Keep up to date with the State, MI5 (Security Service) cover-up in the Martin McGartland cases:

http://www.scribd.com/martymcgartland#

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Northumbria Police

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr McGartland

Your initial request for review specifically asked for the response to be
sent  to your personal e-mail address. This instruction was followed.

Please find a copy of the internal review attached below -

Dear Mr McGartland,

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

Thank you for your email dated the 15th September 2011 in which you
requested a review of the response to your request for access to
information which may be held by Northumbria Police. May I take this
opportunity to apologise sincerely for the delay in our responding to you.
 The delay has been due to an inordinately high level of work in my
department.

You asked:

Please supply me with copies of all information and documents under
Freedom of Information Act concerning these latest complaints, all
internal correspondence and also correspondence from NP, its officers to
IPCC and its replies concerning these latest complaints. the only
complaints that NP are dealing with relating to me, those which I made
during the month of July 2011. 

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 requests from
yourself and others dating from September 2009 onwards, many of these
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  Freedom of Information requests on this
subject matter.

Section 14 (1)- 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 believed 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.
   
Your request for review asked:

Request for an Internal Review of Request 582/11
 
I am requesting an internal review of this matter.   If your going to
rubber stamp this case too, if NP are going to continue with their lying
and covering-up can you reply as soon as possible, I am being kept waiting
each/every time only to be told it is  'vexatious'.   The truth is that NP
are refusing to relates this information because it shows that they, IPCC
are not only colluding with each other, but they are also not
investigating complaints which I have made against corrupt police
officers, police officers who are being protected.  
The information I have requested relates to complaints I have made against
Northumbria Police officers, those complaints were only made during the
past few months (June/July 2011).   Why did NP wait so long to deal with
this request if they knew they were going to lie about this request too?

Your response to your request for review is as follows:

I have assessed the actions taken by the Unit and the response provided to
you and in this particular case, I do not believe that the Section 14
Exemption under the Act has been applied appropriately.

The information you seek will consist of yours and others personal
information and so will be exempt by virtue of Section 40 of the Act.  I
have set out the exemption for you below:
Section 40 - Personal Information

(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and

(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

(3) The first condition is—

(a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of
the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene -

(i) any of the data protection principles, or

(ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and

(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of the
[1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held
by public authorities) were disregarded.

Section 40 is a classed based, absolute exemption and therefore there is
no need to explain the public interest considerations in this area.

You should consider this to be a refusal under section 17 of the Act.

My view is that Section 40 is the appropriate exemption to apply in
respect of the information that you have requested.  It would be
inappropriate to disclose sensitive personal data to you under the Act as
it is released into the wider community.  

However, you may wish to request the information you require using Data
Protection Legislation whereupon, Section 7 of the Data Protection Act
1998, allows a right of access to personal or sensitive personal data held
by the data controller, in this case, Northumbria Police.

The Data Protection Act 1998 sets out that a request must be made in
writing and a fee (not exceeding the prescribed maximum) provided along
with information which allows the Data Controller to satisfy himself to
the identity of the person making the request.  This is commonly referred
to as Subject Access.

I have enclosed the Subject Access forms required so that you may make
your request should you wish.  Northumbria Police require that this
documentation is completed, copy identification information such as a
passport or driving license and a fee of £10 payable by cheque or postal
order is provided.  The data controller is not obliged to comply with the
legislation unless he is supplied with the items detailed.

To conclude, I accept that Section 14 of the Act was inappropriately
applied in this case and that Section 40 of the Act would have been the
correct exemption to apply with the addition of allowing you to apply for
the requested data using Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

In the meantime, it remains open to you to refer this matter to the
Information Commissioner at the following address:

Information Commissioners Officer
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely

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

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #84900 email]>
on 11/02/2012 19:22

To:        FOI requests at Northumbria Police
<[Northumbria Police request email]>
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information request - My July 2011
Complaints against  Chief Superintendent Chris Thomson, Head of  PSD

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    On the 18th November 2011 I wrote to you as follows;
   
    "This is a request for an Internal review. Please also send your
    reply, the one you emailed to my personal email, to this request."
   
    Will you now deal with this matter and let me have your reply.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   
   
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
    [FOI #84900 email]
   
    Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
    published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offic...
   
    If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
    web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

It can be seen from my above request that I did not ask NP to write to my personal email address.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

Your original request was submitted to our Professional Standards
Department via your personal email address on 28 July 2011.  Mr Cleugh
then contacted you via your personal email address for clarification, as
your request was received via that email address.  You provided
clarification via your personal email address on 1 August 2011.  Therefore
our response was sent to your personal email address on 1 September 2011.

You advised us on 1 September, again via your own personal email address,
that "You will have had my reply to this FOI request which I have added to
and sent to you via the What Do They Know website;
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/my...
Can NP please ensre that this request/matter is dealt with via the What do
they know site. Please do not deal with any FOI requests via this email
address unless I request that you do so."

Your request for Internal Review, was again sent via your personal email
address on 15 September 2011, with specific instructions within the
heading of your email as follows "Please respond to Marty McGartland
<xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com>".  Our acknowledgement and response to your
Internal Review request were therefore forwarded to your personal email
address.

Therefore, we can confirm that your request and subsequent request for
Internal Review were received via you own personal email address.  Should
you wish us to provide you with copies of these communications, detailing
the email address used, please let us know and we would be happy to
oblige.

Regards

Helen

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #84900 email]>
on 17/02/2012 22:02

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information request - 582/11 - Complaints
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    It can be seen from my above request that I did not ask NP to write
    to my personal email address.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

Do you lot never tell the truth when you deal with me, my cases. It is all spin, lies, smear, dirty tricks and cover-up. When I ask NP about public money they don't answer the questions, Why?

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

As advised in my email of 20 February, I am happy to provide you with the
copies of your emails (request/request for internal review etc) that show
you did use your personal email address.  Bearing in mind that these
documents do contain your personal email address could advise if you want
these forwarded to the relevant whatdotheyknow email or your personal
email address.

Regards

Helen

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #84900 email]>
on 22/02/2012 19:26

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information request - 582/11 - Complaints
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    Do you lot never tell the truth when you deal with me, my cases. It
    is all spin, lies, smear, dirty tricks and cover-up. When I ask NP
    about public money they don't answer the questions, Why?
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I am well aware that NP have my personal email address, however, your office have been using it since 2009 to contact me.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif) anodiad ()

One BENT Cop. Get more info on the Martin McGartland case and the State Cover-up;

http://www.youtube.com/user/dufferpad

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

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk