Raoul Moat case, costs

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.

Roedd y cais yn rhannol lwyddiannus.

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Northumbria Police in their press release;
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/bul...
have stated that; 'Northumbria Police have received a number of requests to make known the cost of the operation and are now in a position to do so.'

Can you please supply me all information and documents concerning the following;

1. Copies of all FOI requests made to NP concerning the costs in this case.

2. Full details concerning the number of FOI requests made to NP concerning this matter.

3. Please give full details and supply all information concerning any of those requests having been judged by NP as being 'vexatious'.

4. Please supply full details as to reasons why NP were initially refusing to release this costs information under FOIA. Include details of number of requests which were initially refused and give reasons for refusing.

5. Why was Coun Bridgett initial request for this costs information refused, on what grounds. What was the reason why NP changed that decision. You will be aware that details regarding this issue have already been reported in the press.

6. Please supply breakdown of all/any compensation paid to date by NP relating to this case.

7. Please supply full details of all/any legal advice requested or given to NP regarding the legality of witholding such costs information from the public concerning above case. Please also supply full breakdown of all/any legal costs paid by NP relating to above case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

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

We are in the process of dealing with your request and expect to revert to
you shortly. A response should be provided by 23/03/11.

Yours sincerely

Jan Mcewan
Disclosure Section

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 (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I have just learned that Northumbria Police have also 'Gagged' the Sunday World Newspaper and accused it and one of its reporters of being “vexatious'.

I am adding the text of the story which is published in the Sunday World today to this and all other requests for your information and that of the ICO. This is shocking - What the hell have NP got to hide?

Cops refuse to reveal spy gun hit info
By JOHN CASSIDY
March 13, 2011

THE Sunday World has been ‘gagged’ by a British police force over a probe into the IRA murder bid on RUC agent Martin McGartland. Two months after Northumbria Police refused to answer his questions about its investigation into his 1999 shooting. The same force is now refusing to answer Sunday World questions about the sanctioned Provo hit. And the force – who have yet to charge a single IRA terrorist with the near fatal shooting – claims our request for answers under the Freedom of Information Act is “vexatious’.
It is the same response it gave to Martin McGartland when he asked for answers to questions on his case. Last night, McGartland accused Northumbria Police of a “political cover up’’ to protect Sinn Fein and the peace process. “Northumbria Police can’t give a straight answer to a straight question,’’ he told the Sunday World this week from his secret hideaway address somewhere in the UK.

Disgrace

“I believe Northumbria Police have familial DNA from the crime scene linked to family members of the gunmen.
“I believe the police have told the Government,MI5 or its advisers of this familial DNA and the Northumbria Police have been told not to act on it as it could rock the political boat in Northern Ireland. “It is an absolute disgrace that Northumbria Police can think they can fob off newspapers who are making a genuine request for information about the attempt on my life.
“As the victim in this case, no one is keener than I for the perpetrators for the savage attack upon me that changed my life forever, be apprehended, put before the courts and sent to prison. “The Sunday World has supported me in my quest for this to happen. Northumbria Police “Neither I nor the Sunday World I would do anything that would prevent this from happening. “Northumbria Police are so desperate to silence me and the Sunday World, to stop us for asking embarrassing questions, that they will do or say anything whether or not it is true and irrespective of what damage they do to me or anyone else in the process.’
Ends;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50616601/Sunda...

I too have been 'gagged' (as have others) and been accused as having been 'vexatious' by NP;
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47984176/North...

The truth is that NP are involved in a cover up in this case. They continue to lie and act in a disgraceful manner while dealing with me and my case.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

2 Atodiad

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

Thank you for your email dated 23rd February 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:

"Can you please supply me all information and documents concerning the
following;

1. Copies of all FOI requests made to NP concerning the costs in this case.

2. Full details concerning the number of FOI requests made to NP concerning
this matter.

3. Please give full details and supply all information concerning any of
those requests having been judged by NP as beingvexatious.

4. Please supply full details as to reasons why NP were initially refusing
to release this costs information under FOIA. Include details of number
of requests which were initially refused and give reasons for refusing.

5. Why was Coun Bridgett initial request for this costs information
refused, on what grounds. What was the reason why NP changed that
decision. You will be aware that details regarding this issue have
already been reported in the press.

6. Please supply breakdown of all/any compensation paid to date by NP
relating to this case.

7. Please supply full details of all/any legal advice requested or given
to NP regarding the legality of withholding such costs information from
the public concerning above case. Please also supply full breakdown of
all/any legal costs paid by NP relating to above case."

In response:

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

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

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

1-4. Please see the below which answers these parts of your request.

(See attached file: FOI 151-11 - Copy of FOIs.doc)

There are a further two requests which I have not provided as the
information you have requested is accessible by other means. By not
providing you with a copy of the information I will rely on Section 21
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You should therefore consider this a refusal for this part of 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.

One request had been submitted by you, FOI 103/11 refers, on the 9th
February 2011 and a response was provided to you on 15th February 2011.
A further request was finalised on 15th February 2011. Both these
requests are in the public domain and can be found on the What Do They
Know website, with which you are familiar.

In order to aid you further I have provided the link below:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/

5. Although we would not routinely disclose the details of any individual
who has submitted FOI requests, as you rightly state this has already
been reported upon and is in the public domain. This request was
refused under Sect 22 (1) (a) Information intended for future
publication. This information was always going to be released into the
public domain, once ratified, via the Publication Strategy which was set
up on the Northumbria Police website in September 2010. The Publication
Strategy was set up specifically to be as open and transparent as
possible in relation to the Raoul Moat Investigation, Operation Bulwark,
and provides details of specific information which we intend to publish
upon completion of the investigation, and information which will be
subject to exemptions under the Act.

Northumbria Police did not change its decision. At this point in time
the costs for the operation had been finalised and approved for
publication and therefore released into the public domain.

Although we were under no obligation to do so, once the information had
been released into the public domain the requesters of queries which
could now be answered were contacted and directed to the relevant link
where the information was freely available.

For your information I have supplied the relevant link to the
Publication Strategy below:

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/bul...

6. No information held. No compensation has been paid.

7. No legal advice was sought in the withholding of the requested
information. FOI legislation sets down exemptions which can be applied
if certain criteria are met. This obviously applies to the costs of the
case, which was refused under Section 22, as this information was
intended for publication in due course. This legislation was applied
accordingly and the figures were immediately released once they became
available.

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 (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

** Request for outstanding information ONLY **

Dear Northumbria Police,

Thank you for your reply of today.

You do not appear to have released the following information;

1. Copies of all FOI requests made to NP concerning the costs in this case.

i.e. Can you please confirm you have released copies of all the FOI requests in this matter?

2. Full details concerning the number of FOI requests made to NP concerning this matter.

i.e. Can you please supply me with details of the number of FOI requests made to NP in this matter.

3. Please give full details and supply all information concerning any of those requests having been judged by NP as being vexatious.

i.e. I asked for full details and information concerning any requests having been judged by NP in this matter as being 'vexatious'. Can I please have all of the information and documents concerning this. Please also include the number of requests, if any, which NP judged as vexatious.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland,

I believe we supplied sufficient information to answer your request,
however in order to further assist you I add the following:

1. You were supplied with copies of all FOI requests made concerning costs
in this case (using a Word document and via a link to the appropriate
web-site). You were also supplied with all responses sent.

2. As we supplied you with a copy of each request, you were supplied
enough information to answer this question. Whilst there is no duty under
the Act to create information (it is not recorded how many requests were
received), to further assist you I can confirm that 14 requests were
received on this subject. Details of each request were supplied to you.

3. As you were supplied with a copy of each request and subsequent
response, you can review each response and note that none were declared as
vexatious.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #63191 email]>
on 22/03/2011 14:27

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 151/11
- Raoul Moat case [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     ** Request for outstanding information ONLY **
   
    Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    Thank you for your reply of today.
   
    You do not appear to have released the following information;
   
    1. Copies of all FOI requests made to NP concerning the costs in
    this case.
   
    i.e. Can you please confirm you have released copies of all the FOI
    requests in this matter?
   
    2. Full details concerning the number of FOI requests made to NP
    concerning this matter.
   
    i.e. Can you please supply me with details of the number of FOI
    requests made to NP in this matter.
   
    3. Please give full details and supply all information concerning
    any of those requests having been judged by NP as being vexatious.
   
    i.e. I asked for full details and information concerning any
    requests having been judged by NP in this matter as being
    'vexatious'. Can I please have all of the information and documents
    concerning this. Please also include the number of requests, if
    any, which NP judged as vexatious.
   
    I look forward to your reply.
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

I not you added the following to your reply; 'i.e. I asked for full details and information concerning any
requests having been judged by NP in this matter as being 'vexatious'. Can I please have all of the information and documents concerning this. Please also include the number of requests, if any, which NP judged as vexatious.' You will notice I asked; 'Please also include the number of requests, if any, which NP judged as vexatious.' However, you did not include the number nor any details. I had to write to you for a second time, (as above), to be told; 'As you were supplied with a copy of each request and subsequent response, you can review each response and note that none were declared as vexatious.'

Regards

Martin McGartlasnd

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

To give final clarification and draw this request to a close, I can
confirm that no requests received on this subject were classed as
vexatious.

As such vexatious requests did not exist, we were unable to provide you
with any recorded details of such requests.
 
Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From:        Martin McGartland <[FOI #63191 email]>
on 29/03/2011 12:04 CET

To:        [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:        
Subject:        Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 151/11
- Raoul Moat case [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

     Dear Northumbria Police,
   
    I not you added the following to your reply; 'i.e. I asked for full
    details and information concerning any
    requests having been judged by NP in this matter as being
    'vexatious'. Can I please have all of the information and documents
    concerning this. Please also include the number of requests, if
    any, which NP judged as vexatious.' You will notice I asked;
    'Please also include the number of requests, if any, which NP
    judged as vexatious.' However, you did not include the number nor
    any details. I had to write to you for a second time, (as above),
    to be told; 'As you were supplied with a copy of each request and
    subsequent response, you can review each response and note that
    none were declared as vexatious.'
   
    Regards
   
    Martin McGartlasnd
   
    Yours faithfully,
   
    Martin McGartland
   
   

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland (Ataliwyd y cyfrif)

Dear Northumbria Police,

There would have been no need for 'clarification' had NP dealt with my request for information correctly in the first place, it was a straightforward question regards 'vexatious'.

Thank you for that.

Regards,

Martin McGartland