Operation Kalmia

Mae'r ymateb i'r cais hwn yn hwyr iawn. Yn ôl y gyfraith, ym mhob amgylchiad, dylai Independent Police Complaints Commission fod wedi ymateb erbyn hyn. (manylion). Gallwch gwyno drwy yn gofyn am adolygiad mewnol.

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

Operation Kalmia was an IPCC managed investigation into Staffordshire Police's management of the investigation following the murder of Kevin NUNES.

The investigation commenced following a decision by the appeal court to quash the convictions of five men previously convicted of the crime. In their written judgment the appeal court judges wrote 'It is to be hoped that the appropriate measures will be taken against those responsible for what appears to us to be a serious perversion of the course of justice'.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/...

Could you please provide the following information. Should you not hold the information requested I would be grateful if you could direct this request to the relevant public body.

1. The date that the IPCC's management of the investigation started.

2. (a) The formal remit of the IPCC's investigation
(b) Details of any other cases which were report to the IPCC in the course of Operation Kalma, but did not form part of the formal remit.
(c) Details of the authority or other body that the additional matters were referred to.

3. The date that any decision not to continue with any Criminal Proceedings was taken.

4. The date that the IPCC's initial recommendations were issued to the relevant Police Authorities.

5. The date that the IPCC concluded Operation Kalmia.

6. The total cost of Operation Kalmia.

7. The number of former or still serving officers that were investigated as suspects as part of Operation Kalmia.

8. The number of civilians suspects that were investigated as part of Operation Kalmia.

9. A breakdown of the number of officers under investigation by the following categories.

(a) Retired at the time the IPCC investigation commenced.
(b) Still serving at the time the IPCC investigation commenced but retired prior to the date Criminal Proceedings were ruled out (i.e. Point 3 above)
(c) Still serving at the time the IPCC investigation commenced but retired betwen the date Criminal Proceedings were ruled out (i.e. Point 3above) and the date of the IPCC intial recommendations (i.e. Point 4 above)
(d) Still serving at the date of the IPCC intial recommendations (i.e. Point 4 above) but retired prior to any discplinary action being taken.

10. (a) Number of officers that the IPCC's initial report recommended action against.
b) The number of officers that IPCC's initial report did not recommended action against
(c) Number of officers that were disciplined in as per with the IPCC's recommendations.

11. The number of police officers suspects that were arrested as part of Operation Kalmia.

12. The number civilian suspects that were arrested as part of Operation Kalmia.

13. The number of private addresses of police suspects (i.e. homes or offices used by any suspect) that were searched as part of Operation Kalmia.

14. The number of private addresses of Civilian suspects (i.e. homes or offices used by any suspect) that were searched as part of Operation Kalmia.

15. A copy of the senior investigating officers report to the IPCC.

16. A copy of the IPCC's report.

17. A copy of the report referred to as the "Costello Report" which in part led to the IPCC managed investigation.

Yours faithfully,

Mr L. Anderson

!FOI Requests, Independent Police Complaints Commission

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IPCC, your email and any attachments will be assessed logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to acknowledge and respond to.

FOI Team

Gemma Thomas, Independent Police Complaints Commission

Dear Mr Anderson,

Thank you for your email.

I am contacting you to update you about our progress on your request. I regret that we have not yet completed our consideration of your request and it is now likely that we will not be responding until Friday 6 May at the latest. This means that we will not be complying with your request within the 20 working day period allowed by the Freedom of Information Act.

Please accept my apologies for the delay. Please quote our request reference 1005889 in any correspondence about this request.

Yours sincerely,

Gemma Thomas
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
W: 0121 673 3742
M: 07984 255 415
F: 020 7166 3163
[email address]<mailto:[email address]>
www.ipcc.gov.uk<http://www.ipcc.gov.uk>

Dear Gemma Thomas,

Thank you for your correspondence informing me that the IPCC's response to my request will not be made within the 20 day period specified by the Freedom of Information Act. I note that the delay in the response may mean that the information may not be released until the day after the Election date for the Police and Crime Commissioners, ............... I trust that the failure of the IPCC to meet the statutory guidelines was not politically motivated.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

Gemma Thomas, Independent Police Complaints Commission

Dear Mr Anderson

Thank you for your email below.

I would like to assure you that the delay in our response in relation to this FOI is in no way linked to the elections for Police and Crime Commissioners.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Thomas
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
W: 0121 673 3742
M: 07984 255 415
F:  020 7166 3163
[email address]
www.ipcc.gov.uk

Dear Gemma Thomas,

Thank you for you correspondence dated 3rd May 2016. In your earlier letter there was an assurance that my request would be dealt with by the 6th May 2016 at the latest, however I have still not received that reponse. The response to my application under the Freedom of Information Act is now well overdue and therefore I would like to request an internal review in respect of the failure of the IPCC to deal with my request within the specified time limits.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

Phil Johnston, Independent Police Complaints Commission

Dear Mr Anderson,

Thank you for your email.

We are sorry about the continuing delays in answering your request. We agree that the IPCC has failed to respond to your request within the time allowed for compliance under section 10 of the FOIA. We anticipate responding by Friday 20 May.

Yours sincerely,

P Johnston
IPCC

Phil Johnston, Independent Police Complaints Commission

Dear Mr Anderson,

Further to my email below we regret to say that we have been unable to complete your request by today as we had hoped. We are awaiting the return of a member of staff from leave next week and will then be in a position to finalise our response. We anticipate, therefore, that you will receive the response by Friday 27 May 2016.

Please accept our apologies for the continuing delay.

Yours sincerely,

P Johnston

From: Phil Johnston [mailto:[email address]]
Sent: 13 May 2016 17:17
To: '[FOI #325627 email]'
Subject: Your request to the IPCC - our ref 1005889

Dear Mr Anderson,
Thank you for your email.
We are sorry about the continuing delays in answering your request. We agree that the IPCC has failed to respond to your request within the time allowed for compliance under section 10 of the FOIA. We anticipate responding by Friday 20 May.
Yours sincerely,
P Johnston
IPCC

Phil Johnston, Independent Police Complaints Commission

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Anderson,

Further to our recent correspondence, please find attached to this email our letter responding to your request of 31 March 2016 with the exception of parts 2(a), 2(b) and 17.

We will contact you again as soon as we can about our responses to your outstanding questions. Please accept our apologies for the continuing delay in completing these questions.

Yours sincerely,

P Johnston
IPCC

Dear Phil Johnston,

Thank you for your letter dated 27th May 2016.

I have read your draft response and I await with interest the IPCC's decision in respect of requests 2(a) 'The formal remit of the IPCC's investigation', 2(b) ' Details of any other cases which were reported to the IPCC in the course of Operation Kalmia, but did not form part of the formal remit' and 17 ' A copy of the report referred to as the "Costello Report" which in part led to the IPCC managed investigation'.

The IPCC has had two months to consider requests 2(a), 2(b) and 17 twice the time set under the Freedom of Information Act, this delay is unacceptable and I therefore request an internal review in respect of the delay and failure to provide the information.

Your responses to the below listed requests made under the FIO Act suggest that no civilians formed part of the investigation and that no civilians were arrested, Could I please ask that you recheck the accuracy of this response, particularly in respect of the 'Protected Witness' that was central to the investigation.

8. 'The number of civilian suspects that were investigated as part of Operation Kalmia'
12. 'The number of civilian suspects that were arrested as part of Operation Kalmia'

Your response to request 5 'The date the IPCC concluded Operation Kalmia', states "21 November 2014", given that the IPCC recommendations were not made until June 2015, is this date correct?

In your response you state that in respect of request 16 'A copy of the IPCC''s report', the IPCC has decided not to release the document under various exemptions within the FIO Act. I will deal with each of the exemptions as listed below.

Section 40(2) FOIA - Release of information would identify individuals and therefore breach Data Protection principles.

(1) In this case a number of the senior officers have already been named and in some cases have publically discussed the matter therefore their details are already in the public domain.

(2) In the case of officers not previously named the option of redacting there details should be considered.

(3) The individuals in this matter were public officials paid by the tax payer to carry out their duties in accordance with the rules and regulations, using this exemption to allow individuals to remain anonymous would be wrong. There is a strong public interest In releasing this report which I believe outweighs the arguments for non disclosure.

Section 30(1)(a)(1) Investigations conducted by Public Authorities.

There is no doubt that the IPCC does constitute a public authority and that an investigation took place, however that investigation is complete, criminal and disciplinary action has been ruled out therefore the IPCC is no longer viewing the material to ascertain whether anyone should be charged with an offence. For this reason I do not believe that exemption provided under Section 30(1)(a)(1) applies.

Section 38(1)(b) - Health and Safety .

The exemption provides an exemption where the release of the information would be likely to endanger the safety of any individual. As outlined above a number of officers have already publically named and have not come to any harm. The 'Protected Witness' has previously been publically named therefore the release of the report would not result in any additional risk to him. Given the above I feel that there are no grounds to support the argument that releasing the information would endanger the safety of individual officers.

Section 30(1)(a)(1) and Section 38(1)(b)

This exemption deals with balancing the public interest grounds for release vs refusal to release. I agree with the ground in support of release.

(1) In respect of the grounds in favour for non disclosure I feel that the case for applying this exemption has not been made.

(2) The need to protect witnesses confidentiality is given as a supporting factor, however the 'Whistleblower' and 'Protected Witness' have already been named and their involvement fully publicised.

(3) "The need to maintain the independence of the judicial and prosecution processes". Clearly the law should follow the correct judicial processes, after all Operation Kalmia was investigating breaches of those processes. The public have a real interest in ensuring that the Police, Crown Prosecution Service, IPCC and the Police and Crime Commissioners are behaving in accordance with those principles and the release of the report will allow them reach an informed view.

Your responses to previous points indicates that 14 Officers were investigated after which the IPCC recommended action against the 8 officers still serving and would have recommended action against a further 6 officers had they still been serving . In other words 14 were investigated and the IPCC concluded grounds for action in 14 cases, despite the IPCC findings no discipline hearing took place. Failure to release the report may look like a cover up to hide failures or wrongdoing and thereby undermine confidence in those public bodies.

Section 30(3) - Investigations

This exemption argues that confidential sources must be protected. I largely agree with this rationale however feel that some redacting will address any such issues.

Section 23(5) Information Supplied by Security Bodies.

This exemption outlines a potential absolute exemption in respect of the 'Costello Report', however does clarify that a final decision has not yet been made. There were numerous references to this report in the Court of Appeal's judgement which I believe justify its release. The report was supplied to the IPCC by Staffordshire Police in the course of Operation Kalmia. Staffordshire Police have already indicated publically on a previous FIO request published on Whatdotheyknow.com that they are 'minded to release' the 'Costello Report' but are waiting for the IPCC to agree. In this case the original 'owners' of the report have provisional agreed to the release of the material, therefore I feel that there are no grounds to continue to withhold it under this exemption.

I have outlined my views in respect of your response and I would like to once again to formally ask for an internal review into delays in dealing with my requests. Additionally I would like to formally ask for an internal review into the non-disclosure of some of the material, on the grounds outlined above.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

!FOI Requests, Independent Police Complaints Commission

2 Atodiad

Dear Mr Anderson,

Please find attached to this email our second response to your request and the document to which the letter refers. This answers the three questions that were not answered in our response of 27 May 2016.

I am sorry about the long delay in letting you have our full response.

Please quote our reference 1005889 in any further correspondence about this request.

Yours sincerely,

IPCC

Dear !FOI Requests,

Thank you for your letter dated 28th June 2016, I note your decision in respect of the outstanding responses to my requests. I previously responded to the IPCC on the 27th May 2016, requesting clarification on the IPCC's responses up to that date, as yet I have not received any reply to that correspondence.

Having read your rationale for refusing to disclose the information requested I feel that you are wrong to apply the various exemptions cited.

In particular I feel that the Terms of Reference should have been provided in full and that the redactions are unnecessary and serve only to hide the scale and nature of the wrong doing under investigation.

In respect of the Costello Report I note that you consider that it was in effect supplied to you in confidence by Staffordshire Police and whilst that may be the case I note that a similar request that I made to Staffordshire Police has just been rejected despite stating that they were"minded" to disclose a redacted copy of the Costello. Staffordshire Police cite as the main ground the following.

"' Staffordshire Police were subject to a Document Handling Agreement which prohibited dissemination of the Costello Report without the IPCC’s written agreement. The IPCC have not agreed to the disclosure of the report by Staffordshire Police."

I am at a loss to understand why a statutory public body which is allegedly independent of the police, should be involved in trying to restrict access to information which is of such clear public interest.

I would like to request an internal review into the time in which it has taken the IPCC to deal with my request and the additional requests for clarification as per my letter dated 27th May 2016. I would also like to appeal against the refusal to provide a full copy of the terms of reference and other documents requested.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

!FOI Requests, Independent Police Complaints Commission

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IPCC, your email and any attachments will be assessed logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to acknowledge and respond to.

FOI Team

Gadawodd Mr L. Anderson anodiad ()

I have not received any response since the 12th July 2016, therefore I have referred the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Gemma Thomas, Independent Police Complaints Commission

Dear Mr Anderson

Case ref: 1005889
ICO ref: FS50645506

Thank you for your email below. I apologise for our delay in responding. I would like to assure you that we are progressing with your internal review. Your case is currently with an internal independent reviewer for a final decision to be made.

I hope to be in contact with you early next week with a final response.

If you have any questions or would like any further information please do contact me.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Thomas
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
W: 0207 166 5157
F:  020 7166 3163
[email address]
www.ipcc.gov.uk

Dear Gemma Thomas,

A month as elapsed since your last correspondence. The delay in dealing with my 'Internal Review' request is outside the timescales set under the FIO Act. If I do not receive a reply within the next 10 days I will refer this matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

Gemma Thomas, Independent Police Complaints Commission

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Anderson
 
Please find attached our response to your request for an internal review.
 
Yours sincerely
Gemma Thomas
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
W: 0207 166 5157
M: 07984 255 415
F:  020 7166 3163
[1][email address]
[2]www.ipcc.gov.uk
 
 
 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/

Dear Gemma Thomas,

Thank you for your correspondence dated 9th December 2016. I have read the response provided in the form of a letter signed by David Knight and I note that he felt that the delays in responding were in part due to the complexity of the request and the need to seek the views of various individuals involved in the case.

I also note Mr Knight's comments regarding points 8 and 12 (& 14), which concerned the civilian suspects and whether any such suspects had been arrested. Mr Knight suggests that the IPCC remit does not extend to civilian suspects therefore an earlier response suggesting that there were no 'civilian suspects' was correct.

I cannot help but feel that this answer has a tendency to mislead the reader and to avoid providing the information requested. Operation Kalmia was an 'IPCC Managed' investigation therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC actively managed the way in which the investigation proceeded.

Whilst Mr Knight's statement that the IPCC's remit is to primarily investigate wrongdoing by police officers, it is often the case that in such cases there are civilian suspects involved , therefore in order to effectively investigate the matter the civilians must form part of the investigation and may on occasions be arrested and interviewed by the IPCC's investigators.

In this particular case, the conduct of the police officer's managing the 'Protected Witness' and the conduct of the 'Protected Witness' were central to the investigation. I fail to see how in these circumstances the IPCC could not have included the 'Protected Witness' in the criminal investigation, and I understand that the 'Protected Witness' was in fact a suspect, and was arrested and interviewed under caution during Operation Kalmia. It is for this reason that I feel if this is true, the answers provided by the IPCC are inaccurate and misleading.

The purpose of my FIO request was in part to ascertain the extent and thoroughness of the IPCC managed investigation, i.e. were all potential suspects dealt with in a thorough and equal manner, were proper steps taken to secure evidence by means of searches or seizures under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.

With 14 Police Officers under investigation for potentially criminal conduct, were they each handled in the same way as any civilian suspects. The answers provided by the IPCC so far, do not address this issue, if my understanding is correct the 'Protected Witness' did form part of the IPCC managed investigation, he was the only person arrested, I cannot say whether he or his home address were subjected to any searches.

If my understanding outlined above is correct, some members of the public may conclude that different treatment was afforded to police suspects when compared with civilian suspects, it may also raise concerns regarding thoroughness of the investigation and the impartiality and independence of the IPCC. If however my understanding is incorrect then the public may be reassured with the IPCC's management of this investigation.

Once again I ask that the IPCC revisits these request (8,12 and 14) and provide clear and definitive responses to what are simple points, further prevarication is not acceptable.

Finally I note that Mr Knight does not find any fault with the decision not to release the 'Costello Report' or IPCC Final Report, however then states that he feels that the reports should be released albeit in a redacted form. Some readers my feel that the views expressed are contradictory, if the original decision was correct and not at fault, why has it now been changed. From time to time mistakes are made, I fully understand that and I welcome the reversal of the decision to now release the documents, however in my opinion a simple acknowledgement of the mistake is better that to try to maintain that no mistake was ever made.

Given the time that has already elapsed, I do know hope the IPCC will now meet its obligations under the FIO Act and release the redacted reports without any further undue delays. I would be grateful if you could pass my letter to the person responsible for internal reviews so the issues concerning points (8,1 & 14) can be reconsidered.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

Dear Gemma Thomas,

A month has now passed since I last contacted the IPCC however I have not received any reply or acknowledgement. Could you please advise me whether the lack of a response is an oversight or a deliberate decision by the IPCC to ignore my request. Should I not hear from you with one week I will refer this matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

!FOI Requests, Independent Police Complaints Commission

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Anderson,

We are sorry about the delay in responding to your email of 5 January 2017.

Attached to this email is a letter from David Knight responding to the matters you have raised.

Yours sincerely,

IPCC

Dear !FOI Requests,

Thank you for your correspondence dated 17th February 2017, which deals in part with some of points raised in my earlier requests. I have some issues concerning the information provided to me under the FIO Act, however as I have previously highlighted those concerns to you I will not labour them now. I will consider referring the issues to the Information Commissioner once I have received the IPCC's final response.

This request was made to the IPCC in March 2016, almost one year ago. In December 2016, the IPCC wrote stating that they were willing to provide redacted copies of some of the information requested and explained that the redaction process would take some time to complete. Ten week have elapsed since that communication was received and yet I have still not received any of the requested information.

Whilst I appreciate that some work is required to prepare the redacted material, I feel that the time delay is excessive and unacceptable. I would be grateful if you could update me on the progress of the work.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

!FOI Requests, Independent Police Complaints Commission

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IPCC, your email and any attachments will be assessed logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to acknowledge and respond to.

FOI Team

Gemma Thomas, Independent Police Complaints Commission

Dear Mr Anderson

Thank you for your email below.

I have looked into your case 1005889, however I am unsure what you mean by you have not received a reply. We have responded to your original request 1005889 in full and then responded to your request for an internal review on 17 February 2017.

Are you referring to a case outside of 1005889?

Yours sincerely

Gemma Thomas
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
W: 0207 166 5157
M: 07984 255 415
F:  020 7166 3163
[email address]
www.ipcc.gov.uk

Dear Gemma Thomas,

With regards to your communication set early today, I am still awaiting the redacted reports mentioned in David Knight's letter dated 9th December 2016. The reports I await form part of the material that I requested back in March 2016, the full details of which can be found on this website (link shown below)

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

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

Gemma Thomas, Independent Police Complaints Commission

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Anderson

Thank you for your email below, please find attached the latest letter on this case from our Deputy Chair, Sarah Green.

Yours sincerely

Gemma Thomas
Freedom of Information & Data Protection Manager
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH
W: 0207 166 5157
M: 07984 255 415
F:  020 7166 3163
[email address]
www.ipcc.gov.uk

Dear Gemma Thomas,

Earlier today I received the following message via my email address:-

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

Dear Mr Anderson

I write to update you regarding Operation Kalmia and the planned publication date. We are aiming to publish the redacted final report and the summary document on our website on Wednesday 4th October. Once this is published I will send a link to you with the report. I apologise for the further delay, however due to the volume of further representations received further time is required to consider these fully.

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

I have replied to the author of the email in the following terms:-

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

Thank you for the advance notice, however Once again I had already had this information via third parties earlier this morning. I should point out that this request was made 18 months ago, and there are other documents still outstanding.

As a qualified solicitor you will be aware that the FIO act requires public body to deal with requests for information in a timely way, therefore to strictly comply with the law, if the material is available it should be released to the requestor immediately and not delayed a further week to suit the IPCC's political objectives.

I made my request via the Whatdotheyknow.com website, I would be grateful if you could now forward me the redacted report via that website without any further unnecessary delay.

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

I have sent the email and reply so that of aware of the correspondence, and to ensure any interested parties following this FIO application are able to see the progress and communications between the IPCC and myself. It would be somewhat simpler if all updates etc were done via this website which was how I made my request originally.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

Phil Johnston, Independent Police Complaints Commission

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Anderson
 
Further to our previous correspondence and your complaint to the
Information Commissioner, attached to this email is a letter from David
Knight regarding your request for the Operation Kalmia report. 
 
We are sending a copy of this letter to the Information Commissioner’s
Office under their case reference FS50645506.
 
Please quote our request reference 1005889 in any further correspondence
 
Yours sincerely
 
 
IPCC
 
 

Dear Phil Johnston,

Thank you for the letter from Mr Knight explaining the various exemptions that have been applied to the Final Report that I requested back in March 2016. Whilst the letter covers the Final Report it makes no mention of the Costello Report listed at number 17.

I have had an opportunity to briefly review the material published by the IPCC on the link provided and I have noted that there are significant redactions, including entire paragraphs, in some cases even including the paragraph number e.g. 647. In this particular example the redacted paragraph follows a direct quote from the Appeal Court judgement leaving me totally bemused about what it could relate to that would require a justifiable exemption.

Page 175 appears to detail the allegations against Adrian Lee, and he is clearly identified in the unredacted material. It is confusing that certain paragraphs presumably detailing specific allegations of Misconduct have been entirely redacted, what is unclear is why. What exemption if being applied to the redaction of paragraphs 1155 and 1156? Mr Knight's letter does not make clear which if any exemption as been applied to justify these particular exemptions.

There appears to me that redactions have been carried out on a selective basis, rather than on a strict application of permitted exemptions under the act. On pages 221 and 222. comments attributed to Suzette Davenport are shown in clear but following paragraphs presumably giving details of similar are redacted, if correct this as the potential for distorting text so as to mislead the reader. I have some concern that individuals have been able to influence the redaction process to redact information which reflects poorly on their conduct, I do not believe that this is justified under the FIO Act.

I would like to be able take a balanced view on the exemptions that have been applied, consider the public interest argument for or against publication in respect of the various redactions, however that is not possible given insufficient details have been provided. It is not in the spirit or letter of the Act to simply list the various exemptions applied to a 587 page document and then extensive redact the information without indicating the justification in respect of each and every redaction.

It has taken the IPCC over 18 months to release this information following my FIO request, it is disappointing that after that length of time the redaction process has been so poor carried out. My reading to the final report so far is that it serves those who were investigated for misconduct more that the public that deserve to be able read the full details in the report on Operation Kalmia which is reported to have cost in region of Eight million pounds of public money.

The examples I have given above do not represent a definitive list of my objections to redactions in the report, but merely illustrate the type of redactions which prevent me from providing balance and justified views on the information released under the FIO Act. I would like to request an internal review of the redactions carried out, the omission of item 14 'Costello Report' and the time it has taken to the deal with my FIO request.

I will copy this correspondence to the ICO to ensure that the commissioner dealing reviewing this matter is fully aware of my views on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

Phil Johnston, Independent Police Complaints Commission

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Anderson,

Thank you for your email of 6 October.

As we said in our letter of 4 October, if you are dissatisfied with our revised decision you should contact the Information Commissioners' Office (ICO) and request that they continue their investigation of your complaint to them. This includes your complaint about the delay in completing our review.

I am sorry that we have not clarified before now that we are treating your complaint about our refusal of the Costello report as resolved by the disclosure made by Staffordshire Police following the Information Commissioner's Decision notice of 24 April 2017 (FS50646644). As our refusal of this report forms part of your complaint to the Information Commissioner, you should contact Helen Jarman if you wish to continue with this aspect of your complaint.

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter we have today emailed to the ICO relating to their ongoing investigation under section 50 of the FOIA.

Yours sincerely,

Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)
90 High Holborn
London WC1V 6BH

In early 2018, the IPCC will become the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Find out more here

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Police watchdog (IPCC) ‘racist and corrupt’

The Met’s Olympics poster girl is suing the complaints commission, claiming it frustrates inquiries to protect accused officers

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which investigates misconduct and racism, is riddled with corruption and discriminatory practices, according to a whistleblower.

Carol Howard, a former investigator at the police watchdog who was the Metropolitan police poster girl for the London 2012 Olympics, claims senior executives “believe their duty is not to investigate officers but to protect the reputation of the police force concerned and its senior officers in particular”.

She also says that some investigators at the watchdog secretly support the racist police officers whom they are investigating. As a result they try to “frustrate, delay, restrict and close down investigations” to protect the targets of their inquiries.

Howard, 37 who is suing the IPCC for racial discrimination and victimisation .... (The Times - LONDON, 18 November 2017) Read in Full, here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/polic...

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org