Raoul Moat Investigation - Operation Bulwark

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.

Yn disgwyl am adolygiad mewnol gan Northumbria Police o'u triniaeth o'r cais hwn.

Dear Northumbria Police,

In Feb 2011 NP confirmed that; "The total cost from the first shootings on 3 July until the present time is £1,411,354." ; http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/bul...

NP also confirmed following;

• Costs for Mutual Aid from other forces: £460,062
• Northumbria Police officer and staff overtime until 11 July: £585,406
• Northumbria Police officer and staff overtime from 12 July to date: £93,110
• Miscellaneous* and non pay costs: £272,776

I understand NP only released this information after a complaint was made by Councillor Steven Bridgett after a FOI request by him for all costs of the manhunt for Raoul Moat was refused by NP. I also understand that Coun Bridgett received a phone call from the Deputy Chief Constable Jim Campbell telling him he will have the figures in a 'few days.'

In order to be open and transparent can NP please supply me with the following information, as detailed under section 84 of FOIA, as follows;

1. Given that five or six months have now passed since NP released above. Please supply total cost/s from the first shooting on 3rd July 2010 and up until the date this request is answered.

2. NP claim that the costs in that case as of Feb 2011 were £1,411,354. Please confirm if this case is the most expensive case that NP have dealt with during the past 15 years. If not, please give details of the most expensive case NP have dealt with during that time, including total costs of such case/s and also a breakdown of same.

3. Please give full details of all other cases that NP have dealt with during the past 15 years where the costs were in excess of £1 million pounds. Please also list name/s of each case and supply full details and background on such case/s, including total cost/s and also breakdown similar to that released by NP in the above case.

4. Please supply full details of all/any compensation paid to any person/s, including amounts and legal costs, by NP and or its insurers relating to the Raoul Moat Investigation - Operation Bulwark.

5. Have NP requested or received emergency and or additional funding, grants or any other payments or funding from Home Office and or any other Government departments during the past 12/13 months relating to the Raoul Moat Investigation - Operation Bulwark. If so, please supply full details of amount/s involved, details of who paid such amounts and reason/s for same.

If one part of this request can be answered sooner than others, please send that information first followed by any subsequent data.

If FOI requests of a similar nature have already been asked could you please include your responses to those requests.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

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

We are in the process of dealing with your request and expect to revert to
you shortly. A response should be provided by 26 August 2011.

Please note that any response sent will contain information 'held' at the
time your request was received, and not to the date any response is sent
(subject to the application of any relevant exemptions).

Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Northumbria Police

1 Atodiad

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

Thank you for your email dated 28 July 2011 in which you made a request
for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police),
subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

You asked:

In Feb 2011 NP confirmed that; "The total cost from the first shootings on
3 July until the present time is **1,411,354.";
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/bul...

NP also confirmed following;
*** Costs for Mutual Aid from other forces: **460,062
*** Northumbria Police officer and staff overtime until 11 July: **585,406
*** Northumbria Police officer and staff overtime from 12 July to date:
**93,110
*** Miscellaneous* and non pay costs: **272,776

I understand NP only released this information after a complaint was made
by Councillor Steven Bridgett after a FOI request by him for all costs of
the manhunt for Raoul Moat was refused by NP. I also understand that Coun
Bridgett received a phone call from the Deputy Chief Constable Jim
Campbell telling him he will have the figures in a 'few days.'

In order to be open and transparent can NP please supply me with the
following information, as detailed under section 84 of FOIA, as follows;

1. Given that five or six months have now passed since NP released
above. Please supply total cost/s from the first shooting on 3rd July 2010
and up until the date this request is answered.

2. NP claim that the costs in that case as of Feb 2011 were
**1,411,354. Please confirm if this case is the most expensive case that
NP have dealt with during the past 15 years. If not, please give details
of the most expensive case NP have dealt with during that time, including
total costs of such case/s and also a breakdown of same.

3. Please give full details of all other cases that NP have dealt
with during the past 15 years where the costs were in excess of **1
million pounds. Please also list name/s of each case and supply full
details and background on such case/s, including total cost/s and also
breakdown similar to that released by NP in the above case.

4. Please supply full details of all/any compensation paid to any
person/s, including amounts and legal costs, by NP and or its insurers
relating to the Raoul Moat Investigation - Operation Bulwark.

5. Have NP requested or received emergency and or additional
funding, grants or any other payments or funding from Home Office and or
any other Government departments during the past 12/13 months relating to
the Raoul Moat Investigation - Operation Bulwark. If so, please supply
full details of amount/s involved, details of who paid such amounts and
reason/s for same.

6. If FOI requests of a similar nature have already been asked
could you please include your responses to those requests.

In response:

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

In relation to your comments concerning Councillor Bridgett's request. As
you are aware you have previously been provided with a response in
relation to this, advising that Councillor Bridgett's request was refused
under Section 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.

Please refer to your response received in relation to (NP reference)
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 151/11 - Raoul Moat Case /
(whatdotheyknow ref) [email address].

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

As advised earlier, our response contains information 'held' at the time
your request was received, and not to the date this response is sent.

I can disclose the located information to you as follows.

It should be noted that we can only reasonably maintain financial records
for the six previous financial years plus the current financial year.
With this in mind please see the below response.

1. The Operation Bulwark costs as published remains the total
additional costs to the Force on this operation.

2. This case is the most expensive case dealt with by the Force in
the previous 6 years.

3. There were no other cases whose recorded costs exceeded
**1million pounds in the previous 6 years.

4. None.

5. **449,000 additional funding was received in relation to
Operation Bulwark from the Home Office.

6. As the information you have requested, at this point of your
request, 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 to the public on the
Northumbria Police website - Disclosure Log. In order to aid and assist
you further I have supplied the relevant link below:-

[1] http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...

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

How to complain

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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 28 July 2011 in which you made a request
for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police),
subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

You asked:

In Feb 2011 NP confirmed that; "The total cost from the first shootings on
3 July until the present time is **1,411,354.";
http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/bul...

NP also confirmed following;
*** Costs for Mutual Aid from other forces: **460,062
*** Northumbria Police officer and staff overtime until 11 July: **585,406
*** Northumbria Police officer and staff overtime from 12 July to date:
**93,110
*** Miscellaneous* and non pay costs: **272,776

I understand NP only released this information after a complaint was made
by Councillor Steven Bridgett after a FOI request by him for all costs of
the manhunt for Raoul Moat was refused by NP. I also understand that Coun
Bridgett received a phone call from the Deputy Chief Constable Jim
Campbell telling him he will have the figures in a 'few days.'

In order to be open and transparent can NP please supply me with the
following information, as detailed under section 84 of FOIA, as follows;

1. Given that five or six months have now passed since NP released
above. Please supply total cost/s from the first shooting on 3rd July 2010
and up until the date this request is answered.

2. NP claim that the costs in that case as of Feb 2011 were
**1,411,354. Please confirm if this case is the most expensive case that
NP have dealt with during the past 15 years. If not, please give details
of the most expensive case NP have dealt with during that time, including
total costs of such case/s and also a breakdown of same.

3. Please give full details of all other cases that NP have dealt
with during the past 15 years where the costs were in excess of **1
million pounds. Please also list name/s of each case and supply full
details and background on such case/s, including total cost/s and also
breakdown similar to that released by NP in the above case.

4. Please supply full details of all/any compensation paid to any
person/s, including amounts and legal costs, by NP and or its insurers
relating to the Raoul Moat Investigation - Operation Bulwark.

5. Have NP requested or received emergency and or additional
funding, grants or any other payments or funding from Home Office and or
any other Government departments during the past 12/13 months relating to
the Raoul Moat Investigation - Operation Bulwark. If so, please supply
full details of amount/s involved, details of who paid such amounts and
reason/s for same.

6. If FOI requests of a similar nature have already been asked
could you please include your responses to those requests.

In response:

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

In relation to your comments concerning Councillor Bridgett's request. As
you are aware you have previously been provided with a response in
relation to this, advising that Councillor Bridgett's request was refused
under Section 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.

Please refer to your response received in relation to (NP reference)
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 151/11 - Raoul Moat Case /
(whatdotheyknow ref) [email address].

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

As advised earlier, our response contains information 'held' at the time
your request was received, and not to the date this response is sent.

I can disclose the located information to you as follows.

It should be noted that we can only reasonably maintain financial records
for the six previous financial years plus the current financial year.
With this in mind please see the below response.

1. The Operation Bulwark costs as published remains the total
additional costs to the Force on this operation.

2. This case is the most expensive case dealt with by the Force in
the previous 6 years.

3. There were no other cases whose recorded costs exceeded
**1million pounds in the previous 6 years.

4. None.

5. **449,000 additional funding was received in relation to
Operation Bulwark from the Home Office.

6. As the information you have requested, at this point of your
request, 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 to the public on the
Northumbria Police website - Disclosure Log. In order to aid and assist
you further I have supplied the relevant link below:-

[1] http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...

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

How to complain

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

I am not requesting an Internal review at this stage.

It is very concerning that NP are not dealing with my FOI requests, they continue to fail to supply the information I am requesting and they are subjecting me to delay after delay. Furthermore, I am also having to make further requests for information, information which I have already requested from them, but which NP are refusing to release to me.

In my no 1 request I asked; ‘Given that five or six months have now passed since NP released above. Please supply total cost/s from the first shooting on 3rd July 2010 and up until the date this request is answered.’

In your reply you say; ‘The Operation Bulwark costs as published remains the total additional costs to the Force on this operation.’

Are NP saying they have not spent any other monies on Operation Bulwark since they confirmed the total costs to date of **1,411,354 in Feb 2011. So are NP saying that the total costs of Operation Bulwark remain at **1,411,354 to this day, as of 26th August 2011? If not, Please supply the requested information.

I asked you in my no 2 request; ‘ NP claim that the costs in that case as of Feb 2011 were **1,411,354. Please confirm if this case is the most expensive case that NP have dealt with during the past 15 years. If not, please give details of the most expensive case NP have dealt with during that time, including
total costs of such case/s and also a breakdown of same.’

Your reply was; 2. ‘This case is the most expensive case dealt with by the Force in
the previous 6 years.’

You will note that I asked; ‘NP claim that the costs in that case as of Feb 2011 were **1,411,354. Please confirm if this case is the most expensive case that
NP have dealt with during the past 15 years. If not, please give details of the most expensive case NP have dealt with during that time, including total costs of such case/s and also a breakdown of same.’

Will NP now deal with the request. If NP are saying that they do not keep such information can you please explain why not?

In my no 3 request I asked; ‘Please give full details of all other cases that NP have dealt with during the past 15 years where the costs were in excess of **1 million pounds. Please also list name/s of each case and supply full details and background on such case/s, including total cost/s and also breakdown similar to that released by NP in the above case.’

In your reply you say; 3. ‘There were no other cases whose recorded costs exceeded **1million pounds in the previous 6 years.’

Again, that was not what I asked NP, Can you please deal with my request too. If NP are saying that they do not keep such information can you please explain why not?

In my no 5 request I asked; ‘Have NP requested or received emergency and or additional funding, grants or any other payments or funding from Home Office and or any other Government departments during the past 12/13 months relating to the Raoul Moat Investigation -Operation Bulwark. If so, please supply full details of amount/s involved, details of who paid such amounts and reason/s for same.’

You say in your reply that; 5. ‘**449,000 additional funding was received in relation to Operation Bulwark from the Home Office.’ Once again NP have not dealt with my no 5 request, can you please do so, Please include following informatio to;
a. Why was this money paid by the Home Office?
b. Did NP apply for it, if so, on what grounds and for what reason?
c. What is the total amount/s that has been paid to NP by Home Officer concerning Operation Bulwark. What were the reason/s for such payments?
d. How do NP apply for such mionies from Home Office, what is the criteria for doing so. Please supply all information that NP have concerning same..

In my request no 6 I asked; ‘If FOI requests of a similar nature have already been asked could you please include your responses to those requests.’

In your reply to 6. You say, ‘ As the information you have requested, at this point of your request, 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 am now requesting NP's help under freedom of information act regards this request. Can you please send me links to where I can find ‘FOI requests of a similar nature have already been asked could you please include your responses to those requests.’ You have not given me any information nor have NP dealt with this request.

Look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

Dear Mr McGartland

I shall answer your points in turn, it may be worth noting that response
to Freedom of Information requests are not statements about subjects, they
are merely answers to requests submitted.

As per our original response to you, the response supplied was the
recorded costs as at the time your request was received (29 July 2011).

As explained in our original response, Northumbria Police do not have
access to records going back 15 years to be able to answer your query.
Rather than give a total negative response, in the spirit of the Act we
supplied the information that we were able to. To further clarify,
we have been advised that there are some accounting systems that do go
back further than that period, however it is unlikely that the information
requested is held on those systems and the re-boot and gaining of access
to those systems would exceed the cost and time threshold as allowed under
the Act.

Your question 5 asked for
amount/s involved - Supplied
details of who paid such amounts - Supplied
reason/s for same - For the costs of the
investigation

Please note, where information is reasonably accessible to the applicant
it is exempt from disclosure. Our original response supplied you with a
link to where similar requests can be found. You may enter your own search
criteria (e.g. "Moat", "investigations","costs") to see what you may feel
could be classed as a similar request)

You have now been supplied with a response to your request and further
clarification on that response.

Northumbria Police now consider the matter closed.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection & Disclosure Advisor

From: Martin McGartland <[FOI #81174 email]>
on 26/08/2011 17:10 CET

To: [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Request 574/11
- Operation Bulwark [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

Dear Northumbria Police,

I am not requesting an Internal review at this stage.

It is very concerning that NP are not dealing with my FOI requests,
they continue to fail to supply the information I am requesting and
they are subjecting me to delay after delay. Furthermore, I am also
having to make further requests for information, information which
I have already requested from them, but which NP are refusing to
release to me.

In my no 1 request I asked; ***Given that five or six months have now
passed since NP released above. Please supply total cost/s from the
first shooting on 3rd July 2010 and up until the date this request
is answered.***

In your reply you say; ***The Operation Bulwark costs as published
remains the total additional costs to the Force on this operation.***

Are NP saying they have not spent any other monies on Operation
Bulwark since they confirmed the total costs to date of **1,411,354
in Feb 2011. So are NP saying that the total costs of Operation
Bulwark remain at **1,411,354 to this day, as of 26th August 2011?
If not, Please supply the requested information.

I asked you in my no 2 request; *** NP claim that the costs in that
case as of Feb 2011 were **1,411,354. Please confirm if this case
is the most expensive case that NP have dealt with during the past
15 years. If not, please give details of the most expensive case NP
have dealt with during that time, including
total costs of such case/s and also a breakdown of same.***

Your reply was; 2. ***This case is the most expensive case dealt with
by the Force in
the previous 6 years.***

You will note that I asked; ***NP claim that the costs in that case
as of Feb 2011 were **1,411,354. Please confirm if this case is the
most expensive case that
NP have dealt with during the past 15 years. If not, please give
details of the most expensive case NP have dealt with during that
time, including total costs of such case/s and also a breakdown of
same.***

Will NP now deal with the request. If NP are saying that they do
not keep such information can you please explain why not?

In my no 3 request I asked; ***Please give full details of all other
cases that NP have dealt with during the past 15 years where the
costs were in excess of **1 million pounds. Please also list name/s
of each case and supply full details and background on such case/s,
including total cost/s and also breakdown similar to that released
by NP in the above case.***

In your reply you say; 3. ***There were no other cases whose recorded
costs exceeded **1million pounds in the previous 6 years.***

Again, that was not what I asked NP, Can you please deal with my
request too. If NP are saying that they do not keep such
information can you please explain why not?

In my no 5 request I asked; ***Have NP requested or received
emergency and or additional funding, grants or any other payments
or funding from Home Office and or any other Government departments
during the past 12/13 months relating to the Raoul Moat
Investigation -Operation Bulwark. If so, please supply full details
of amount/s involved, details of who paid such amounts and reason/s
for same.***

You say in your reply that; 5. *****449,000 additional funding was
received in relation to Operation Bulwark from the Home Office.***
Once again NP have not dealt with my no 5 request, can you please
do so, Please include following informatio to;
a. Why was this money paid by the Home Office?
b. Did NP apply for it, if so, on what grounds and for what reason?
c. What is the total amount/s that has been paid to NP by Home
Officer concerning Operation Bulwark. What were the reason/s for
such payments?
d. How do NP apply for such mionies from Home Office, what is the
criteria for doing so. Please supply all information that NP have
concerning same..

In my request no 6 I asked; ***If FOI requests of a similar nature
have already been asked could you please include your responses to
those requests.***

In your reply to 6. You say, *** As the information you have
requested, at this point of your request, 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 am now requesting NP's help under freedom of information act
regards this request. Can you please send me links to where I can
find ***FOI requests of a similar nature have already been asked
could you please include your responses to those requests.*** You
have not given me any information nor have NP dealt with this
request.

Look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

You have yet again refused to deal with my request, failed to supply all of the requested information and you have failed to deal with my latest correspondence in this matter.

I am now requesting an Internal revew of this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Northumbria Police

We acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of the
response you received in relation to the above mentioned Freedom Of
Information request.

We aim to provide a response to you within 20 working days of this
acknowledgement.

Yours sincerely

Jan Mcewan

Disclosure Section

From: Martin McGartland <[FOI #81174 email]> on
31/08/2011 02:35 CET

To: [Northumbria Police request email]
cc:
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Raoul Moat
Investigation - Operation Bulwark

Dear Northumbria Police,

You have yet again refused to deal with my request, failed to
supply all of the requested information and you have failed to deal
with my latest correspondence in this matter.

I am now requesting an Internal revew of this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

By law you should have dealt with this Internal review on or before 28th September 2011. However, as of today (28/10/11) you have still not dealt with this case.

Please let me have your findings/reply.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Sue Sim and Northumbria Police - up to their old tricks yet again. Request relating to Martin McGartland requests to Northumbria Police is Upheld by Information Commissioner, see here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72333438/Sue-S...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Dear Northumbria Police,

If I do not get a reply within the next 7 days I can confirm that I will be making a complaint to the ICO concerning this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

I have this evening made a complaint to the ICO concerning this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()

Sue Sim and Northumbria Police said FOI request relating to Martin McGartland attempted murder case was 'Vexatious'. The Information Commissioner has issued a Decision Notice against Sue Sim and Northumbria Police which states, 'The Commissioner finds that the force incorrectly applied section 14(1) to the request. He requires the public authority to respond to the request in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act within 35 calendar days.' That complain was upheld by the Information-Commissioner, Decision Notice: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72333438/Sue-S...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Gadawodd Martin McGartland anodiad ()