Northumbria Police's 2009 unlawful and flawed 'vexatious' Notice in Martin McGartland attempted murder case - the cover-up

Martin McGartland 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,

In your 25th January 2011 reply you included;
“However, as you remain dissatisfied I propose to review the declaration of the vexatious nature of your requests that you were sent in November 2009. A review of that decision will determine whether your recent requests could also be reasonably determined as vexatious as they are relating to the same subject matter. Please confirm by reply should this be acceptable to you and we will progress accordingly.”

As you know it was far from acceptable but NP took it upon themselves to carry out another flawed ‘review’ of their unlawful and flawed 2009 ‘vexatious’ notice. NP did this even when such a review had not been requested, when I was not party to it, see here;
Link here; http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ma...

NP then wrote to me on 9th March 2011, http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ma...

You also stated in your reply that; "Prior to declaring your requests as vexatious, you made numerous requests through the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I have listed the dates of receipt of these requests below, previous case law has 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]”

Talking about moving goalpost. You are incorrect when you claim “You also included in your reply that; Prior to declaring your requests as vexatious,” In fact your email, as above, is proof of same, you wrote; “Notification of Vexatious sent to you 13/11/2009
“This letter is in response to your two requests for information dated the 11th November 2009 in which you made a request for access to certain information held by Northumbria Police.”

I made only two requests at that stage (those which NP deemed as Vexatious). NP cannot try to re-write the history of their flawed and unlawful 2009 notice.

You go on to list following;
13/09/09 1759 hrs - our ref number 1610

19/09/09 1227hrs - our ref number 1621

29/10/09 2010hrs - our ref number 1708

11/11/09 1405hrs - our ref number 1750

11/11/09 1241hrs - our ref number 1745

11/11/09 0258hrs - our ref number 1745 (aggregated with the request above)

You have subsequently made further requests relating to the same subject matter

13/12/10 2144 hrs – our ref number 0817

14/12/10 1708 hrs – our ref number 0819

14/12/10 1725 hrs – our ref number 0820

20/12/10 1112 hrs – our ref number 0834

The 4 requests you list above 0817, 0819, 0820, 0824 are nothing at all to do with the 2009 flawed and unlawful Vexatious Notice. Moreover, you have also listed 13/09/09 requests 1610, 1621, 1708, 1750, 1745 and 1745 (aggregated with the request above). Again, these too have nothing at all to do with your 2009 flawed and unlawful Vexatious Notice, as detailed above. That was issued as a result of only 2 requests (two requests that were for different information).

Furthermore, I did not seek an internal review of that notice nor did I complain to the ICO as I was not aware of my rights at that stage. I note that NP did not make me aware at that time that I could have requested an internal review.

It is clear to me that the latest flawed review that was untaken by NP (when no-one asked/requested it) was done by them to try to manipulate this matter and or to attempt to re-write what took place in 2009. You will also be well aware that NP cannot use a 2009 notice in relation to any other requests made since let alone for requests that are being made over 2 years later.

I am now making the following FOI request for all recorded information concerning NP's 2009 notice and their March 2011 review.

I am requesting following;

1. All evidence and documents including FOIA requests used by NP concerning their November 2009 vexatious notice.

2. What evidence and or information did NP use for their March 2011 review of their November 2009 notice.

3. Did the March 2011 review look at any additional information over and above that used in 2009 notice, if so, please list all such information and explain why this was included in March 2011 review.

4. Have NP requested any external legal advice concerning their November 2009 vexatious notice, if so, please supply following;
a, who supplied the advice?
b, Date of advice (all dates if more that one)?
c, Cost/s of legal advice (all amounts)?

5, Have the ICO (its staff) contacted NP (including FOI department, staff) concerning NP's November 2009 vexatious notice (verbally and or in writing) between November 2009 and up until the date this request has been answered. if so, please answer following;
a. Give reason/s for all/any contact.
b. Dates of all contact.
c. Dates of ICO officers.
d. Did ICO offer NP any sort of advice and or guidance concerning their November 2009 vexatious notice (including advice and or guidance on possible review of it) ? If so, supply all information on same.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

http://www.scribd.com/martymcgartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

Can you please confirm that your dealing with this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland 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

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Thank you for your email received on 9 February 2012 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 7 March 2012.

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

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 183/12 - Vexatious Notice
and Review

Dear Mr McGartland

Could you please clarify what you mean at point 5c?

"5, Have the ICO (its staff) contacted NP (including FOI department,
staff) concerning NP's November 2009 vexatious notice (verbally and or in
writing) between November 2009 and up until the date this request has been
answered. if so, please answer following;
....
c. Dates of ICO officers."

Regards

Helen

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #105181 email]> on 08/02/2012 20:17

To:        FOI requests at Northumbria Police
<[Northumbria Police request email]>
cc:        
Subject:        Freedom of Information request - Northumbria Police's 2009
unlawful and flawed 'vexatious' Notice in Martin McGartland attempted
murder case - the cover-up

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    In your 25th January 2011 reply you included;
    “However, as you remain dissatisfied I propose to review the
    declaration of the vexatious nature of your requests that you were
    sent in November 2009. A review of that decision will determine
    whether your recent requests could also be reasonably determined as
    vexatious as they are relating to the same subject matter. Please
    confirm by reply should this be acceptable to you and we will
    progress accordingly.”
   
    As you know it was far from acceptable but NP took it upon
    themselves to carry out another flawed ‘review’ of their unlawful
    and flawed 2009 ‘vexatious’ notice. NP did this even when such a
    review had not been requested, when I was not party to it, see
    here;
    Link here;
   
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ma...
   
    NP then wrote to me on 9th March 2011,
   
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ma...
   
    You also stated in your reply that; "Prior to declaring your
    requests as vexatious, you made numerous requests through the
    Freedom of Information Act 2000, I have listed the dates of receipt
    of these requests below, previous case law has 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]”
   
    Talking about moving goalpost. You are incorrect when you claim
    “You also included in your reply that; Prior to declaring your
    requests as vexatious,” In fact your email, as above, is proof of
    same, you wrote; “Notification of Vexatious sent to you 13/11/2009
    “This letter is in response to your two requests for information
    dated the 11th November 2009 in which you made a request for access
    to certain information held by Northumbria Police.”
   
    I made only two requests at that stage (those which NP deemed as
    Vexatious). NP cannot try to re-write the history of their flawed
    and unlawful 2009 notice.
   
    You go on to list following;
    13/09/09 1759 hrs - our ref number 1610
   
    19/09/09 1227hrs - our ref number 1621
   
    29/10/09 2010hrs - our ref number 1708
   
    11/11/09 1405hrs - our ref number 1750
   
    11/11/09 1241hrs - our ref number 1745
   
    11/11/09 0258hrs - our ref number 1745 (aggregated with the request
    above)
   
    You have subsequently made further requests relating to the same
    subject matter
   
    13/12/10 2144 hrs – our ref number 0817
   
    14/12/10 1708 hrs – our ref number 0819
   
    14/12/10 1725 hrs – our ref number 0820
   
    20/12/10 1112 hrs – our ref number 0834
   
    The 4 requests you list above 0817, 0819, 0820, 0824 are nothing at
    all to do with the 2009 flawed and unlawful Vexatious Notice.
    Moreover, you have also listed 13/09/09 requests 1610, 1621, 1708,
    1750, 1745 and 1745 (aggregated with the request above). Again,
    these too have nothing at all to do with your 2009 flawed and
    unlawful Vexatious Notice, as detailed above. That was issued as a
    result of only 2 requests (two requests that were for different
    information).
   
    Furthermore, I did not seek an internal review of that notice nor
    did I complain to the ICO as I was not aware of my rights at that
    stage. I note that NP did not make me aware at that time that I
    could have requested an internal review.
   
    It is clear to me that the latest flawed review that was untaken by
    NP (when no-one asked/requested it) was done by them to try to
    manipulate this matter and or to attempt to re-write what took
    place in 2009. You will also be well aware that NP cannot use a
    2009 notice in relation to any other requests made since let alone
    for requests that are being made over 2 years later.
   
    I am now making the following FOI request for all recorded
    information concerning NP's 2009 notice and their March 2011
    review.
   
    I am requesting following;
   
    1. All evidence and documents including FOIA requests used by NP
    concerning their November 2009 vexatious notice.
   
    2. What evidence and or information did NP use for their March 2011
    review of their November 2009 notice.
   
    3. Did the March 2011 review look at any additional information
    over and above that used in 2009 notice, if so, please list all
    such information and explain why this was included in March 2011
    review.
   
    4. Have NP requested any external legal advice concerning their
    November 2009 vexatious notice, if so, please supply following;
    a, who supplied the advice?
    b, Date of advice (all dates if more that one)?
    c, Cost/s of legal advice (all amounts)?
   
    5, Have the ICO (its staff) contacted NP (including FOI department,
    staff) concerning NP's November 2009 vexatious notice (verbally and
    or in writing) between November 2009 and up until the date this
    request has been answered. if so, please answer following;
    a. Give reason/s for all/any contact.
    b. Dates of all contact.
    c. Dates of ICO officers.
    d. Did ICO offer NP any sort of advice and or guidance concerning
    their November 2009 vexatious notice (including advice and or
    guidance on possible review of it) ? If so, supply all information
    on same.
   
    I look forward to your reply.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
    www.martinmcgartland.co.uk
   
    http://www.scribd.com/martymcgartland
   
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
   
    Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
    [FOI #105181 email]
   
    Is [Northumbria Police request email] the wrong address for
    Freedom of Information requests to Northumbria Police? If so,
    please contact us using this form:
    http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact
   
    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

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 8 February 2012 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 now making the following FOI request for all recorded information
concerning NP's 2009 notice and their March 2011 review.

I am requesting following;

1. All evidence and documents including FOIA requests used by NP concerning
their November 2009 vexatious notice.

2. What evidence and or information did NP use for their March 2011 review
of their November 2009 notice.

3. Did the March 2011 review look at any additional information over and
above that used in 2009 notice, if so, please list all such information
and explain why this was included in March 2011 review.

4. Have NP requested any external legal advice concerning their November
2009 vexatious notice, if so, please supply following;
a. who supplied the advice?
b. Date of advice (all dates if more that one)?
c. Cost/s of legal advice (all amounts)?

5. Have the ICO (its staff) contacted NP (including FOI department, staff)
concerning NP's November 2009 vexatious notice (verbally and or in
writing) between November 2009 and up until the date this request has
been answered. if so, please answer following;
a. Give reason/s for all/any contact.
b. Dates of all contact.
c. Dates of ICO officers.
d. Did ICO offer NP any sort of advice and or guidance concerning their
November 2009 vexatious notice (including advice and or guidance on
possible review of it) ? If so, supply all information on same.

In response:

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

As advised in previous FOI responses, any response will contain information
'held' at the time your request was received, and not to the date this
response is sent (subject to the application of any relevant exemptions).

Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with the Legal
Department of Northumbria Police. I can confirm that the information you
have requested is held by Northumbria Police.

I have decided to disclose the located information to you as follows.

1. & 2. As the information you have requested at this point is accessible
by other means I have not provided you with a copy of the information and
will rely on Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You should
therefore consider this a refusal for your request.

I have provided an explanation to this exemption below.

Section 21 (1) - Information accessible by other means

Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant is exempt
information.

This information is freely available via the Whatdotheyknow website.
All evidence/information for the declaration of vexatious is in the
public domain via responses given to requests and requests for internal
review. Anything that shows the subject as vexatious was displayed in
our responses into the public domain. In order to aid and assist you
further I have provided a link below to the Whatdotheyknow web-site -
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

3. The response given in March 2011 considered all information available in
2009 to ensure that it was the correct course of action at that time.
Additionally in order to update the notice and ensure it was still
relevant, all requests made in the period from 2009 up until March 2011
were also considered.

4. No.

5a, b & d. The ICO has contacted the Force regarding complaints they have
received from individuals on this subject matter. However any contact
from the ICO triggered by individuals' complaints would be classed as
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.

Therefore, you may wish to request this information 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. This
process is referred to as Subject Access. In order to aid and assist
you I have provided a link below to relevant page of the Northumbria
Police website which details how to make a Subject Access application
along with relevant forms for completion:-
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/sub...

5c. Clarification was requested with regards to what was meant by "dates
of officers", however this has not been received. Therefore, we are
unable to provide you with an appropriate response to this question.

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

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

NP have once again failed to deal with my request correctly. They have also failed to release the non-exempt information I have requested and they are again concealing (with the help of the ICO) such information by incorrectly claiming that it is personal information when it is not. Please carry out an internal review of this entire request. I'm not happy with the way in which it has been dealt with, NP are breaching the act and also breaking the law.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Get more info on the Martin McGartland case and the State Cover-up, they are all at it;

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

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

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 183/12 - Vexatious Notice
and Review

In order to progress this request for review can you please confirm that
as per your comment below you are requesting a review of the part of the
response that engaged section 40 of the Act (given to 5 a,b & d).

Should you wish for any other part of the disclosure to be reviewed, can
you please outline your reasons for this to enable the review to be as
thorough as possible. This is particularly required as a response was
supplied to the other parts of this request.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #105181 email]> on 01/04/2012 14:29 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Internal review of Freedom of Information request -
Northumbria Police's 2009 unlawful and flawed 'vexatious' Notice in Martin
McGartland attempted murder case - the cover-up

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    NP have once again failed to deal with my request correctly. They
    have also failed to release the non-exempt information I have
    requested and they are again concealing (with the help of the ICO)
    such information by incorrectly claiming that it is personal
    information when it is not. Please carry out an internal review of
    this entire request. I'm not happy with the way in which it has
    been dealt with, NP are breaching the act and also breaking the
    law.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

Northumbria Police, your dept don't know the meaning of 'thorough as possible' when dealing with me, my requests. The requests and NP's replies on the what-do-they-know site show this to be the case. It is cover-up and rubber-stamp the cover-up.

I am not happy with any part of the request, NP have not dealt with it correctly. I am seeking a review of the entire request.

You say; "In order to progress this request for review can you please confirm that
as per your comment below you are requesting a review of the part of the
response that engaged section 40 of the Act (given to 5 a,b & d)." However, I have dealt with this, it is NOT personal information ... it is a letter from the ICO telling NP off, again, for not dealing correctly and or within the law with FOI requests.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

Request 183/12 - Vexatious Notice and Review

As you were supplied responses to the other parts of your request, in
order to address your concerns in the internal review process can you
please specify why each part of the response caused your dissatisfaction.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #105181 email]> on 04/04/2012 22:46 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 183/12
- Vexatious Notice and Review [CONFIDENTIAL]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    Northumbria Police, your dept don't know the meaning of 'thorough
    as possible' when dealing with me, my requests. The requests and
    NP's replies on the what-do-they-know site show this to be the
    case. It is cover-up and rubber-stamp the cover-up.
   
    I am not happy with any part of the request, NP have not dealt with
    it correctly. I am seeking a review of the entire request.
   
    You say; "In order to progress this request for review can you
    please confirm that
    as per your comment below you are requesting a review of the part
    of the
    response that engaged section 40 of the Act (given to 5 a,b & d)."
    However, I have dealt with this, it is NOT personal information ...
    it is a letter from the ICO telling NP off, again, for not dealing
    correctly and or within the law with FOI requests.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

You say; "As you were supplied responses to the other parts of your request, in order to address your concerns in the internal review process can you please specify why each part of the response caused your dissatisfaction..."

I made it clear that I was requesting a review of the entire request. I am not at all happy with all of your reply to this request, including the parts of the request that you claim you have dealt with, it is clear you have not dealt with them.

Notwithstanding the above NP are clearly adding information to their 'review' of their 2009 notice (which I did not ask for nor request) which they took it upon themselves to carry out. NP have not reviewed their original decision, which I maintain is unlawful, nor did they use their original 'evidence', the original request/s I made at that time. NP are now adding other requests to the mix, requests that were made by me weeks, months and even years after they issued their 2009 unlawful and flawed notice.

The above proves that not only did NP act unlawfully but that their 2009 notice was/is flawed. it also shows that NP did not believe their 2009 notice was lawful or justified. It will be clear that the 2009 notice was used only as a smokescreen so that NP could continue to hide and conceal information that proved failings and wrongdoing on their part relating to my 1999 attempted murder.

You will be aware that I have began legal proceedings against NP within the past week or two. All of these matters (and a great deal more) will of course be addressed and dealt with during those court proceedings.

Any review by NP of the 2009 notice should only take the correct information that relates to their original notice into account, including only the requests I made and those that are connected to it. I note the ICO have turned a blind-eye to this too.

In any event NP cannot continue referring to a 2009 notice (a flawed one at that) 2 or 3 years after it was
issued. I suspect this will be investigated by others at a later date. The ICO will have to explain why the failed to act, why they looked book whys. We say the Home Office or others have become involved.

So far as the rest of the request is involved I am requesting a review on the grounds that NP have once again failed to release ALL of the requested information, they have not dealt with the request correctly and they are continuing to break the law by their failings.

I am once again requesting that NP carry out a proper review of their 2009 notice by using the correct information and 'evidence', that used by them at the time. If NP refuse to do so then it only proves that they too are well aware that their 2009 notice is (always has been) unlawful.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Keep up to date with the Martin McGartland story and the Northumbria Police, MI5 and State Cover-up of his attempted murder:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6q5WkKdhu...

http://www.scribd.com/martymcgartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 183/12 - Vexatious Notice
and Review

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 from receipt of
your request for internal review.
Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section

From:        Martin McGartland
<[FOI #105181 email]> on 10/04/2012 11:25 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 183/12
- Vexatious Notice and Review [CONFIDENTIAL]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    You say; "As you were supplied responses to the other parts of your
    request, in order to address your concerns in the internal review
    process can you please specify why each part of the response caused
    your dissatisfaction..."
   
    I made it clear that I was requesting a review of the entire
    request. I am not at all happy with all of your reply to this
    request, including the parts of the request that you claim you have
    dealt with, it is clear you have not dealt with them.
   
    Notwithstanding the above NP are clearly adding information to
    their 'review' of their 2009 notice (which I did not ask for nor
    request) which they took it upon themselves to carry out. NP have
    not reviewed their original decision, which I maintain is unlawful,
    nor did they use their original 'evidence', the original request/s
    I made at that time. NP are now adding other requests to the mix,
    requests that were made by me weeks, months and even years after
    they issued their 2009 unlawful and flawed notice.
   
    The above proves that not only did NP act unlawfully but that their
    2009 notice was/is flawed. it also shows that NP did not believe
    their 2009 notice was lawful or justified. It will be clear that
    the 2009 notice was used only as a smokescreen so that NP could
    continue to hide and conceal information that proved failings and
    wrongdoing on their part relating to my 1999 attempted murder.
   
    You will be aware that I have began legal proceedings against NP
    within the past week or two. All of these matters (and a great deal
    more) will of course be addressed and dealt with during those court
    proceedings.
   
    Any review by NP of the 2009 notice should only take the correct
    information that relates to their original notice into account,
    including only the requests I made and those that are connected to
    it. I note the ICO have turned a blind-eye to this too.
   
    In any event NP cannot continue referring to a 2009 notice (a
    flawed one at that) 2 or 3 years after it was
    issued. I suspect this will be investigated by others at a later
    date. The ICO will have to explain why the failed to act, why they
    looked book whys. We say the Home Office or others have become
    involved.
   
    So far as the rest of the request is involved I am requesting a
    review on the grounds that NP have once again failed to release ALL
    of the requested information, they have not dealt with the request
    correctly and they are continuing to break the law by their
    failings.
   
    I am once again requesting that NP carry out a proper review of
    their 2009 notice by using the correct information and 'evidence',
    that used by them at the time. If NP refuse to do so then it only
    proves that they too are well aware that their 2009 notice is
    (always has been) unlawful.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

Please can you supply me with an update on this internal review.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 183/12 - Vexatious Notice
and Review

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

Thank you for your email dated 10 April 2012 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:

I am now making the following FOI request for all recorded information
concerning NP's 2009 notice and their March 2011 review.  I am requesting
following;

1.        All evidence and documents including FOIA requests used by NP
concerning their November 2009 vexatious notice.

2.        What evidence and or information did NP use for their March 2011
review of their November 2009 notice.

3.        Did the March 2011 review look at any additional information
over and above that used in 2009 notice, if so, please list all such
information and explain why this was included in March 2011 review.

4.        Have NP requested any external legal advice concerning their
November 2009 vexatious notice, if so, please supply following;
        a. who supplied the advice?
        b. Date of advice (all dates if more that one)?
        c. Cost/s of legal advice (all amounts)?

5.        Have the ICO (its staff) contacted NP (including FOI department,
staff) concerning NP's November 2009 vexatious notice (verbally and or in
writing) between November 2009 and up until the date this request has been
answered. if so, please answer following;
        a. Give reason/s for all/any contact.
        b. Dates of all contact.
        c. Dates of ICO officers.
        d. Did ICO offer NP any sort of advice and or guidance concerning
their November 2009 vexatious notice (including advice and or guidance on
possible review of it) ? If so, supply all information on same.

Our response stated:

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

As advised in previous FOI responses, any response will contain
information 'held' at the time your request was received, and not to the
date this response is sent (subject to the application of any relevant
exemptions).

Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with the Legal
Department of Northumbria Police.  I can confirm that the information you
have requested is held by Northumbria Police.

I have decided to disclose the located information to you as follows.

1 & 2.  As the information you have requested at this point is accessible
by other means I have not provided you with a copy of the information and
will rely on Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  You
should therefore consider this a refusal for your request.

        I have provided an explanation to this exemption below.

        Section 21 (1) - Information accessible by other means

        Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant is
exempt information.

        This information is freely available via the Whatdotheyknow
website.  All evidence/information for the declaration of vexatious is in
the public domain via responses given to requests and requests for
internal review.  Anything that shows the subject as vexatious was
displayed in our responses into the public domain. In order to aid and
assist you further I have provided a link below to the Whatdotheyknow
web-site -
        http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

3.        The response given in March 2011 considered all information
available in 2009 to ensure that it was the correct course of action at
that time.  Additionally in order to update the notice and ensure it was
still relevant, all requests made in the period from 2009 up until March
2011 were also considered.

4.        No.

5a, b & d.  The ICO has contacted the Force regarding complaints they have
received from individuals on this subject matter.  However any contact
from the ICO triggered by individuals' complaints would be classed as
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.

        Therefore, you may wish to request this information 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.  This process is
referred to as Subject Access.  In order to aid and assist you I have
provided a link below to relevant page of the Northumbria Police website
which details how to make a Subject Access application along with relevant
forms for completion:-
        [1]http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/sub...

5c.        Clarification was requested with regards to what was meant by
"dates of officers", however this has not been received.  Therefore, we
are unable to provide you with an appropriate response to this question.

Your original request for review did not detail the specific areas of the
response which you wished to be reviewed.  As Northumbria Police had
provided you with a full response, clarification was sought and you
responded with the following:

You say; "As you were supplied responses to the other parts of your
request, in order to address your concerns in the internal review process
can you please specify why each part of the response caused your
dissatisfaction..."
I made it clear that I was requesting a review of the entire request. I am
not at all happy with all of your reply to this request, including the
parts of the request that you claim you have dealt with, it is clear you
have not dealt with them.
Notwithstanding the above NP are clearly adding information to their
'review' of their 2009 notice (which I did not ask for nor request) which
they took it upon themselves to carry out. NP have not reviewed their
original decision, which I maintain is unlawful, nor did they use their
original 'evidence', the original request/s I made at that time. NP are
now adding other requests to the mix, requests that were made by me weeks,
months and even years after they issued their 2009 unlawful and flawed
notice.
The above proves that not only did NP act unlawfully but that their 2009
notice was/is flawed. it also shows that NP did not believe their 2009
notice was lawful or justified. It will be clear that the 2009 notice was
used only as a smokescreen so that NP could continue to hide and conceal
information that proved failings and wrongdoing on their part relating to
my 1999 attempted murder.

You will be aware that I have began legal proceedings against NP within
the past week or two. All of these matters (and a great deal more) will of
course be addressed and dealt with during those court proceedings.

Any review by NP of the 2009 notice should only take the correct
information that relates to their original notice into account, including
only the requests I made and those that are connected to it. I note the
ICO have turned a blind-eye to this too.
In any event NP cannot continue referring to a 2009 notice (a flawed one
at that) 2 or 3 years after it was issued. I suspect this will be
investigated by others at a later date. The ICO will have to explain why
the failed to act, why they looked book whys. We say the Home Office or
others have become involved.

So far as the rest of the request is involved I am requesting a review on
the grounds that NP have once again failed to release ALL of the requested
information, they have not dealt with the request correctly and they are
continuing to break the law by their failings.
I am once again requesting that NP carry out a proper review of their 2009
notice by using the correct information and 'evidence', that used by them
at the time. If NP refuse to do so then it only proves that they too are
well aware that their 2009 notice is (always has been) unlawful.
In response:

This review shall only cover your request made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and its associated response.

Your request for review has stated that you believe that a complete
response was not supplied to you in response to the questions you
submitted.

It is appropriate to look at each question in turn.

1 & 2. The evidence used to produce the vexatious notice was the
information that was available to this department at that time regarding
your FOI submissions i.e the requests and any associated correspondence
from you.  Whilst you have used the What Do They Know web-site, all of
that correspondence is in the public domain.  It is therefore entirely
appropriate to advise that the information sought is available via that
web-site and accordingly, Section 21 - Information Accessible by Other
Means is appropriate to apply in this case.

        ICO guidance states that a public authority does not need to
provide information under Section 1 of the Act if that information is
reasonably accessible to the applicant by other means.  This is a matter
of fact and not subject to the public interest test.  If the information
is accessible to the applicant by other means, then it is exempt.

        No other evidence was used to produce the vexatious notice or its
subsequent review.

3.        As this question was clearly responded to in the original
response, my review of this part of your request shows that an appropriate
and full response was provided to you to Northumbria Police in accordance
with the legislation.

4.        As this question was clearly responded to in the original
response, my review of this part of your request shows that an appropriate
and full response was provided to you to Northumbria Police in accordance
with the legislation.

5a, b & d.  As per the initial response provided to you, the ICO would
only contact the FOI Department when triggered by a complaint from an
individual.

        As the information held regarding complaints made by you would
clearly refer to you and your complaint, they would on the whole be
classed as personal data and as such would be exempt from disclosure under
the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

        All information regarding requests are held in relevant filing
systems.  This means that for the purposes the Data Protection Act
information contained in them is classed as personal data.

        I have attached guidance from the ICO that gives advice on
relevant filing systems and personal data.  This provides a questionnaire
on relevant filing systems and how to determine what is personal data.
 The information requested at these parts of your request clearly fall
into this category.

       

        As this guidance helps to point out, any data held in a structured
format such as complaint files organised by name and/or other  identifying
markings is classed as personal data.  As it is classified as personal
data, it is clearly exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

        It is therefore the conclusion of this review that the exemption
was appropriately applied and that it was entirely appropriate to provide
advice and guidance on how to make a subject access request under the Data
Protection Act 1998.

5c.        Clarity was sought from you on this point but none was provided
by you, it has therefore not made up part of this review.

This concludes my internal review into your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.  I believe that Northumbria Police have fulfilled
our requirements as per your Freedom of Information request.  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:  0191 2956940
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 -
[2]http://www.northumbria.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/sub...
2. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/