Re: Information and documents relating to 8th August 1991 kidnapping

The request was refused by Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland.

Martin McGartland

Dear Sir or Madam,

As a result of correspondence dated 1st feb 2011 from the PPS I am requesting all information and documents under the FOIA and or any other rights of access as follows;

The PPS claim in their correspondence that;

"Enquiries have been made with the Royal Victoria Hospital and Musgrave Park Military Hospital. No records have been identified concerning your admission on 8th August 1991."

1. Please supply all information and or documents relating to all such requests and enquiries to both Royal Victoria Hospital and Musgrave Park Military Hospital and also all replies received.

And; "While there is some indication that fingerprints of three suspects were recovered at the scene it is by no means clear that these could now be proved to the requisite standard. The original exhibits are unavailable and it is not possible to identify the officers responsible for recovering the prints and supplying them for analysis."

2. Please explain what the PPS mean by '...there is some indication ...' Were the fingerprints recovered or were they not.

3. Please list and supply full details concerning the '...original exhibits ...' which the PPS refer to and supply full details concerning all other exhibits recovered at scene.

4. Please supply full details, information and documents concerning all requests and enquiries, including all replies, for information relating to; 'The original exhibits are unavailable and it is not possible to identify the officers responsible for recovering the prints and supplying them for analysis.'

5. Please supply all information concerning 'One of the suspects is thought to have been the tenant of the property at the time ...' as well as all information concerning; ' ... and the two other suspects were his associates.'

And; 'The fingerprints were on newspapers and books with no direct link to the alleged offence. There is, in short, no forensic evidence to support your account.'

6. Please supply all information concerning where all fingerprints were found, on which items, number of items and where were the said items recovered from.

7. Are the PPS of the view that I was not in the flat. If so, please explain same.

8. Are the PPS satisfied that I was in the flat. If so, please supply all information and documents they have concerning same.

9. Please detail all other forensic evidence which was recovered from the scene, inside and outside the flat.

10. Please supply all information relating to statements made by all other third parties which make reference to man jumping out of window.

11. Please supply full details concerning '...crime scene was held at 54D Broom Park and that an examination was carried out by a scenes of crime officer and a photographer.' What was the name of all officers involved. When did they, police first arrive at the crime scene and when did they leave the crime scene. Was anyone arrested at the scene on the day, 8th Aug 1991.

12, Please supply all detail, information or evidence which was recorded by the photographer concerning broken window(s) and or broken glass both inside and outside the flat, crime scene.

13, Please supply all information or detail concerning person(s) referring to man who's feet were tied and or man with no shoes on at the flat or nearby.

14, Please supply all information concerning my shoes, trainers and or the laces from them being recovered from inside or outside the flat.

15. When did Police first speak to the owner of the flat, what date, and how. How did the owner of the flat explain the events which took place in their home, flat. What explanation did the owner of the flat give concerning broken window(s), man found injured on ground outside, police and others treating the flat as a crime scene etc.

16. Please supply all detail or information concerning any reference relating to the flat having been taken over by anyone, including terrorists, by force, making threats or using intimidation.

17. What date were the PPS first made aware that; 'The original exhibits are unavailable ...' and by whom, name of officers who informed them. How was the information passed to the PPS. Please supply all documents and information concerning same letters to PSNI and also their replies.

18. I'm being told; '...original exhibits are unavailable ...' Please supply all information and documents concerning all requests and enquiries made by the PPS concerning same including all replies. Please also give full details of when the PPS were first made aware, by whom, name of officer(s).

19. I'm also being told; '... it is not possible to identify the officers responsible for recovering the prints and supplying them for analysis.' Please supply all information and documents concerning all requests and enquiries made by the PPS concerning same including all replies.

20. What date were the PPS first made aware that; '... it is not possible to identify the officers responsible for recovering the prints and supplying them for analysis.'
What was the name of officers who informed the PPS. How was the information passed to the PPS. Please supply all documents and information concerning same letters to and from the PSNI as well as all information relating to same.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Info, Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

Mr McGartland, I acknowleddge receipt of your email below,

Regards,

FOI Team
PPS
Belfast Chambers
Chichester Street
Belfast

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland

+++THE FOLLOWING IS THE PPS'S REPLY TO THIS REQUEST+++
=======================================================

THE PPS HAVE EMAILED THE FOLLOWING TO MY PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS THIS MORNING. HOWEVER, THE REQUEST WAS MADE VIA THIS WHAT-DO-THEY-KNOW SITE AND I ASKED FOR THE REPLT TO BE TO ME VIA THIS SITE ONLY.

THE PPS CLAIM THE REASON FOR THIS WAS;
"you will note that this mail has been sent to your personal email address rather than via the ‘What do they know’ website. Due to the nature of your request it is felt that this correspondence should not be conducted in the public domain."
HOWEVER, THIS IS POPPYCOCK, IT WAS DONE BY THE PPS TO CONTINUE WITH THEIR COVER-UP IN THIS CASE. I WOULD LIKE THE PPS TO ENSURE THAT ALL MY REQUESTS ARE ANSWERED VIA THIS SITE. DO NOT SEND SUCH
REPLIES TO MY PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS, EVEN IF MR REA (PPS) INSTRUCTS YOU NOT TO DO SO. THE REPLIES MUST BE SENT TO ME VIA WHAT-DO-THEY-KNOW SITE.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

PPS REPLY
==========

25th February 2011

Our Ref:- FOI 11/059

Your ref:- [email address]

Mr McGartland, you will note that this mail has been sent to your personal email address rather than via the ‘What do they know’ website. Due to the nature of your request it is felt that this correspondence should not be conducted in the public domain.

Thank you for your email dated 4th February 2011. In this email you asked the following questions:-

Question 4. Please confirm if the PPS have ever received a file from the RUC concerning this case. If so, please supply details.

5. Have the RUC ever requested advice from PPS concerning this case. On the 17th January the PPS replied as follows;

Answer 4; I can inform you that the only file held by the PPS in relation to this matter was submitted by the PSNI; no file was ever received from the RUC.

Answer 5; “From searches conducted of PPS records there is no indication that the RUC ever requested advice from the PPS or its predecessor the DPP concerning this case.”

I again wrote to the PPS on the 18th January 2011 as follows;

Dear Sir, Madam, I can confirm that I now have your reply of 17/01/2011.

Can I please ask you to check once again concerning my following question;

5. Have the RUC ever requested advice from PPS concerning this case.

PPS Answer; "From searches conducted of PPS records there is no indication that the RUC ever requested advice from the PPS or its predecessor the DPP concerning this case."

The reason I ask is because the then Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan stated in a letter dated 21st January 1997 that; "A full investigation was carried out and a report submitted to the DPP. On 7 April 1995 the Director issued a direction of 'No Prosecution."

Answer - As stated in our original response of 17th January and reiterated in a further response which issued on 9th February the only file held by the PPS in relation to this matter was submitted by the PSNI; no file was ever received from the RUC. From searches
conducted of PPS records there is no indication that the RUC ever requested advice from the PPS or its predecessor the DPP concerning this case.

You then asked for the following:_

Question 7. Please supply full details of independent counsel who has been sought by PPS concerning the ongoing review.

(a) Provide the names of all law firms and individuals who have supplied such services and/or advice to the PPS concerning the case during the past 3 years to the present day.

(b) Please supply full details of all amounts paid by the PPS on all external legal advice and/or external legal representation concerning this case since 17th June 1999 to the present day.

(c) Please provide a breakdown of the figures and also specify which payments were counsels' fees.

(d) Please provide the names of all law firms and individuals, including independent counsel’ who have supplied such services and/or advice to the PPS concerning the case during the past 3 years and to the present day.

Answer – I can inform you that the PPS sought advice only from a single independent Senior Counsel in relation to this matter. The total cost of the advice obtained was £1200. With regard to the name of the Senior Counsel engaged by the PPS I can confirm that
the PPS holds the name of the Senior Counsel who provided advice in relation to this matter, however, I have identified that the exemptions in section 38 (Health and Safety) and section 40 (Data
Protection) apply to the information you requested.

1. Section 38 – Health and Safety:

Section 38 provides that information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to:

(a)endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or

(b)endanger the safety of any individual.

Reliance on section 38 requires that a public interest balancing test be carried out to determine whether to withhold or release the requested information.

It is considered that the following information falls within section 38: the name of the Senior Counsel engaged by the PPS to provide advice in relation to file reference person reported to the PPS in relation to file 494149Section 38 Considerations in favour of disclosure:

To publish the information requested may serve to increase transparency in the prosecution decision making process.

Section 38 Considerations in favour of maintaining the exemption:

To publish the information requested would involve releasing personal information. The Senior Counsel used by the PPS in relation to this matter has also refused to provide consent for
their name to be released.

To publish the information may inhibit the future effectiveness of PPS prosecutions investigations as to publish the information may adversely affect the relationship and co-operation between the PPS and Independent Counsel and may impact upon Counsel’s willingness to engage in the free exchange of information and opinion that is essential to maintaining an independent and effective Prosecution
Service.

To publish the information requested may impact on the willingness of Counsel to supply candid independent legal advice in relation to the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity.

The PPS has a duty of care, not only to the individual but to the community we serve and to release information which could lead to an individual’s safety being jeopardised could result in a loss of confidence in the way information is used by the PPS.

Releasing the names of individuals involved in the prosecution of a case could lead to individuals being attacked, endangering their own safety and that of their families, should the information be acted upon by an individual or a criminal/terrorist organisation.
While the degree of risk will go up and down depending on the overall situation, the current climate is unfavourable and the threat, in particular from dissident republicans, is high at this time. This is confirmed in recent reports of the International Monitoring Commission. A feature of the terrorist threat currently is the gathering of information by terrorist groups for use subsequently in targeting individuals for attack.

The PPS also take into account the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 2, the Right to Life, when considering the release of personal information into the public domain.

There is no specific public interest which would be served by the release of this particular piece of information.

After careful consideration, and after taking into account all the relevant circumstances, I have determined that the public interest in withholding the information requested outweighs the public interest in disclosure in respect of the items listed above.

2. Section 40(2) - Personal Information

Section 40(2) provides that any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt if:

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

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

(3) the first condition is- (a)in a case where the information falls within any of the
paragraphs (a) to (d) of the definition of “data” in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public otherwise under this Act would contravene-

(i) any of the data protection principles, or

(ii) section 10 of the 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 Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held by public authorities) were disregarded.

It is considered that the following information falls within this exemption:

the name of the Senior Counsel engaged by the PPS to provide advice in relation to file reference person reported to the PPS in relation to file 494149Reliance on section 40 does not require a public interest balancing test be carried out to determine whether
to withhold or release the requested information. To comply with your request would breach the 1st and 2nd principles of the Data Protection Act.

These are: Data Protection Principle 1: Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully (none of conditions set out in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998 are met).

Data Protection Principle 2: Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified or lawful purposes and shall not be processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or other purposes.

The specified lawful purpose referred to above is regarding the prosecution of offences.

The PPS also take into account the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 2, the Right to Life, when considering the release of personal information into the public domain.

If you are dissatisfied in any way with the handling of your request, you have the right to request a review in accordance with our review procedure. In the event that you require a review to be undertaken, you can do so by writing to the Assistant Director
(Policy), Public Prosecution Service, Belfast Chambers, 93 Chichester Street, Belfast, BT1 3JR or alternatively by sending an e-mail to [email address]. You should state clearly the grounds on which you are requesting the review.

Alternatively, you may wish to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
CheshireSK9 5AF

Yours Sincerely,

Martin McGartland

PPS REPLY TO ABOVE REQUEST - AGAIN SENT TO MY PERSONAL EMAIL ADDRESS WHEN I REQUEST WAS MADE FROM WHAT-DO-THEY-KNOW SITE AND WHEN I ASKED FOR REPLY TO BE SENT VIA THIS SITE. THE PPS CLAIM; "As per my previous mail AS ABOVE) you will note that this mail has been sent to your personal email address rather than via the ‘What do they know’ website. Due to the nature of your request it is felt that this correspondence should not be conducted in the public domain. Freedom of Information Act 2000."

POPPYCOCK - WHAT THEY MEAN TO HIDE AND COVER UP WRONGDOING, AND MUCH MORE, BY SUPT KAREN BAXTER(AND THE PSNI), THE PPS AND OTHERS - TO SAVE THEMSELVES FROM ANY EMBARRASSMENT.

ALL MY REQUESTS MUST BE DEALT WITH VIA THIS SITE - MR REA (PPS) HAS NO RIGHT TO ORDER THE FOI DEPT OF THE PPS NOT TO SEND REPLIES VIA WHAT DO THEY KNOW. HE IS ONLY DOING SO FOR ABOVE REASONS.

=====================================================
PPS REPLY TO MARTIN MCGARTLAND
======================================================

8th March 2011

Our Ref: FOI Request 11/58

Your Ref:

Dear Mr McGartland,

I refer to your email dated 14th February in which you asked for various pieces of information in relation to file 494149. This request has been dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. As per my previous mail you will note that this mail has been sent to your personal email address rather than via the ‘What do they know’ website. Due to the nature of your request it is felt that this correspondence should not be conducted in the public domain.
Freedom of Information Act 2000

The Freedom of Information Act creates rights of access for any person making a request for information to a public authority. The rights of access are twofold. First, to be informed by the public authority if it holds information of the description specified in the request, and if that is the case, secondly, to be provided with that information. These rights are subject to important limitations, which are designed to achieve a proper balance between the right to know and considerations of law and policy in the broader public interest.

In your email of 14th February you stated:-

"Enquiries have been made with the Royal Victoria Hospital and Musgrave Park Military Hospital. No records have been identified concerning your admission on 8th August 1991."

Q1. Please supply all information and or documents relating to all such requests and enquiries to both Royal Victoria Hospital and Musgrave Park Military Hospital and also all replies received.

And; "While there is some indication that fingerprints of three suspects were recovered at the scene it is by no means clear that these could now be proved to the requisite standard. The original exhibits are unavailable and it is not possible to identify the officers responsible for recovering the prints and supplying them for analysis."

Answer to Q1 – The Investigation of alleged criminality is a matter for the PSNI. PPS made enquiries of the PSNI as to whether any medical records were in existence in relation to any hospital admission on the 8th of August 1991. PPS was informed that no records were available.

Q2. Please explain what the PPS mean by '...there is some indication ...' Were the fingerprints recovered or were they not.

Q7. Are the PPS of the view that I was not in the flat. If so, please explain same.

Q8. Are the PPS satisfied that I was in the flat. If so, please supply all information and documents they have concerning same.

Answer to Q2, Q7 and Q8 – With regard to these queries it does not appear that you are asking for a piece of information held by the PPS but rather you are seeking explanations and opinions, these are not covered by the Freedom of Information legislation.

Q3. Please list and supply full details concerning the '...original exhibits ...' which the PPS refer to and supply full details concerning all other exhibits recovered at scene.

Q4. Please supply full details, information and documents concerning all requests and enquiries, including all replies, for information relating to; 'The original exhibits are unavailable and it is not possible to identify the officers responsible for recovering the prints and supplying them for analysis.'

Q5. Please supply all information concerning 'One of the suspects is thought to have been the tenant of the property at the time ...' as well as all information concerning; ' ... and the two other suspects were his associates.'

And; 'The fingerprints were on newspapers and books with no direct link to the alleged offence. There is, in short, no forensic evidence to support your account.'

Q6. Please supply all information concerning where all fingerprints were found, on which items, number of items and where were the said items recovered from.

Q9. Please detail all other forensic evidence which was recovered from the scene, inside and outside the flat.

Q10. Please supply all information relating to statements made by all other third parties which make reference to man jumping out of window.

Q11. Please supply full details concerning '...crime scene was held at 54D Broom Park and that an examination was carried out by a scenes of crime officer and a photographer.' What was the name of all officers involved. When did they, police first arrive at the crime scene and when did they leave the crime scene. Was anyone arrested at the scene on the day, 8th Aug 1991.

Q12, Please supply all detail, information or evidence which was recorded by the photographer concerning broken window(s) and or broken glass both inside and outside the flat, crime scene.

Q13, Please supply all information or detail concerning person(s) referring to man who's feet were tied and or man with no shoes on at the flat or nearby.

Q14, Please supply all information concerning my shoes, trainers and or the laces from them being recovered from inside or outside the flat.

Q15. When did Police first speak to the owner of the flat, what date, and how. How did the owner of the flat explain the events which took place in their home, flat. What explanation did the owner of the flat give concerning broken window(s), man found injured on ground outside, police and others treating the flat as a crime scene etc.

Q16. Please supply all detail or information concerning any reference relating to the flat having been taken over by anyone, including terrorists, by force, making threats or using intimidation.

Q17. What date were the PPS first made aware that; 'The original exhibits are unavailable ...' and by whom, name of officers who informed them. How was the information passed to the PPS. Please supply all documents and information concerning same letters to PSNI and also their replies.

Q18. I'm being told; '...original exhibits are unavailable ...' Please supply all information and documents concerning all requests and enquiries made by the PPS concerning same including all replies. Please also give full details of when the PPS were first made aware, by whom, name of officer(s).

Q19. I'm also being told; '... it is not possible to identify the officers responsible for recovering the prints and supplying them for analysis.' Please supply all information and documents concerning all requests and enquiries made by the PPS concerning same including all replies.

Q20. What date were the PPS first made aware that; '... it is not possible to identify the officers responsible for recovering the prints and supplying them for analysis.' What was the name of officers who informed the PPS. How was the information passed to the PPS. Please supply all documents and information concerning same letters to and from the PSNI as well as all information relating to same.

With regard to questions 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 I can confirm that the PPS holds information which falls within your request relating to file 494149, however, I have identified that the exemptions in section 30 (Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities), section 38 (Health and Safety), section 40 (Data Protection) and section 41 (Information provided in confidence) apply to the information you requested.
Applicable Exemptions:

1. Section 30 – Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities:

Section 30 (1) provides that information is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-

(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained-
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or

(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,

(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances, may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has the power to conduct, or

(c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has the power to conduct

The file requested contains the following categories of information which are considered to fall within section 30 (1) ( c):

Witness statements Information from police Internal PPS papers Correspondence between the PPS and PSNI

Reliance on section 30 requires that a public interest balancing test be carried out to determine whether to withhold or release the requested information.

Section 30 Considerations in favour of disclosure:

To publish the information requested may serve to increase the accountability and transparency of the PPS(NI) in the prosecution decision-making process by allowing individuals to understand the reasoning behind decisions made by the PPS which may affect their lives.

To publish the information requested may further the interests of justice as it would improve the public’s knowledge and understanding of the criminal justice process, thereby encouraging the participation of members of the public in that process.

Section 30 Considerations in favour of maintaining the exemption:

To publish the information may inhibit the future effectiveness of police investigations as to publish the information requested would involve the release of information supplied by members of the public and police in confidence and in the expectation that it would only be used for the purpose of a criminal investigation.

To publish the information requested may impact on the ongoing willingness of witnesses to supply information in relation to the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity.

To publish the information requested may impede victim / witness participation in the Criminal Justice process and thereby diminish the likelihood of successful investigations and prosecutions.

To publish the information requested would involve the release of personal information.

After careful consideration, and after taking into account all the relevant circumstances, I have determined that the public interest in withholding the information requested outweighs the public interest in disclosure relating to the items listed above.

2. Section 38 – Health and Safety:

Section 38 provides that information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to:

(a)endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or

(b)endanger the safety of any individual.

Reliance on section 38 requires that a public interest balancing test be carried out to determine whether to withhold or release the requested information.

The file requested contains the following categories of information which are considered to fall within section 38:

Witness statements Information from police Internal PPS papers Correspondence between the PPS and PSNI

Section 38 Considerations in favour of disclosure:

To publish the information requested may serve to increase transparency in the prosecution decision making process.

To publish the information requested may further the interests of justice by encouraging the participation of members of the public in the Criminal Justice process.

Section 38 Considerations in favour of maintaining the exemption:

To publish the information requested would involve releasing personal information.

To publish the information may be distressing to the members of the public who provided the information and would impact on the ongoing willingness of witnesses to supply information in relation to the investigation and prosecution of criminal activity. This information was provided in confidence and in the expectation it would only be used for the purpose of a criminal investigation.

To publish the information requested may impede public participation in the criminal justice process and thereby diminish the likelihood of successful investigations and prosecutions.

The PPS has a duty of care, not only to the individual but to the community we serve and to release the information requested could lead to an individual’s safety being jeopardised and could result in a loss of confidence in the way information is used by the PPS. Releasing the names of individuals involved in a case could lead to individuals being attacked, endangering their own safety and that of their families, should the information be acted upon by an individual or a criminal/terrorist organisation. While the degree of risk will go up and down depending on the overall situation, the current climate is unfavourable and the threat, in particular from dissident republicans, is high at this time. This is confirmed in recent reports of the International Monitoring Commission. A feature of the terrorist threat currently is the gathering of information by terrorist groups for use subsequently in targeting individuals for attack.

The PPS also take into account the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, when considering the release of personal information into the public domain.

Even if the risk is deemed to be low, the effect of a potential attack could have serious and far-reaching consequences for the individuals concerned. It is never in the public interest to endanger an individual’s health and safety: protecting their health and safety must be a paramount consideration.

After careful consideration, and after taking into account all the relevant circumstances, I have determined that the public interest in withholding the information requested outweighs the public interest in disclosure in respect of the items listed above.
3. Section 40(2) - Personal Information

Section 40(2) provides that any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt if:

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

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

(3) the first condition is-

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

(i) any of the data protection principles, or

(ii) section 10 of the 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 Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held by public authorities) were disregarded.

The file requested contains the following categories of information which are considered to fall within section 40:

Witness statements Information from police Internal PPS papers Correspondence between the PPS and PSNI

Reliance on section 40 does not require a public interest balancing test be carried out to determine whether to withhold or release the requested information. To comply with your request would breach the 1st and 2nd principles of the Data Protection Act.

These are:
Data Protection Principle 1: Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully (none of conditions set out in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998 are met).
Data Protection Principle 2: Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified or lawful purposes and shall not be processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or other purposes.

The specified lawful purpose referred to above is regarding the prosecution of offences.

The PPS also take into account the relevant provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, when considering the release of personal information into the public domain.

4. Section 41 (Information provided in confidence)

Section 41 provides that any information to which a request for information relates is also exempt if:

(a) it was obtained by the public authority from any other person (including another public body), and

(b) the disclosure of the information to the public (otherwise than under this Act) by the public authority holding it would constitute a breach of confidence actionable by that or any other person.

The file requested contains the following categories of information which are considered to fall within section 41:

Witness statements Information from police Correspondence between the PPS and PSNI

Witness statements, police files and correspondence between police and PSNI are considered confidential information and are imparted to the PPS in circumstances imputing an obligation of confidence and their disclosure could constitute an actionable breach of confidence.

Reliance on section 41 does not require a public interest balancing test be carried out to determine whether to withhold or release the requested information.

If you are dissatisfied in any way with the handling of your request, you have the right to request a review in accordance with our review procedure. In the event that you require a review to be undertaken, you can do so by writing to the Assistant Director (Policy), Public Prosecution Service, Belfast Chambers, 93 Chichester Street, Belfast, BT1 3JR or alternatively by sending an e-mail to [email address]. You should state clearly the grounds on which you are requesting the review.

Alternatively, you may wish to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision.

The Information Commissioner can be contacted at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

Yours Sincerely,

PPS FOI Team

Martin McGartland

Dear Sir or Madam,

I just emailed the PPS the following from my personal email address;

Re; Please do not send any further replies concerning my requests to this email address.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Can you please ensure that this aswell as the other reply you sent to me today are now sent, added to the what do they know website.

I sent my requests to the PPS via that site and your replies must be sent to the what do they know site.

Please confirm that you will now be doing so.

Please do not send any further replies concerning my requests to this email address.

Thank you.

Martin McGartland
ENDS

Please will the PPS now ensure that their replies are sent, added to this page.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

Can I please have your reply to my 8th March 2011 correspondence.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

Please will you now reply to my 8th March 2011 correspondence and deal with my FOI request for information.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

Please will the PPS stop breaking the law and deal with this reguest.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Request for Internal Review

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

This is a request for an Internal Review. You have not replied to any of my latest correspondence in this matter.

Please confirm that you will now be carrying out an Internal Review into this matter. Please DO NOT send any reply to my email address. All correspondence must be dealt with on this site.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Stephen Burnside, Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

Dear Mr McGartland,

I refer to your request for an internal review.

I confirm that I am currently conducting a review of the PPS
handling of your various FoI requests.

As you will appreciate there is considerable paperwork and a number
of interviews to be carried out. I expect to have the review
completed within 28 days.

Stephen Burnside T/Senior Assistant Director Public Prosecution
Service Belfast Chambers

Martin McGartland

Dear Stephen Burnside,

RE: REPLY AND ALSO REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, DOCUMENTS UNDER FOIA, DPA AND ALL OTHER RIGHTS OF ACCESS.

I want to make it very clear that I do not accept a word the PPS say nor do I trust them. I maintain the PPS are involved in a sophisticated cover up while dealing with me, my FOI and DPA requests.

You will be well aware that I requested an Internal review on the 11th May 2011. I have written to the PPS a number of times since and never got a reply.

I have already been kept waiting for 6 weeks. You are now informing me that the review will take up to another 28 days. Please answer the following;

1. Why have the PPS been ignoring my correspondence in this matter.

2. What have the PPS been doing for the past 6 weeks, since I requested an Internal Review.

3. Why will it take a further 4 to 5 weeks to deal with this Internal review.

4. Why was I not informed of this before now.

5. you claim that ".. a number of interviews to be carried out." Please give full details, reasons for persons being interviewed, names of those being interviewed and reasons for this.

6. Why was this not carried out during the past 6 weeks, since I made my request for Internal review.

This is yet another stalling tactic by the PPS. The ICO will deal with all these issues at a later date.

You will also be aware that such reviews must be carried out within the 20 working day limit.

I trust that you will not ignore this correspondence. I would also be obliged if the PPS will afford me a proper explanation and also answer the above questions.

Can you also ensure that all other documents and information relating to this matter, including those connected to the review are included within this request and released to me. Please ensure the statements, notes of the 'interviews' are also released to me. I am requesting these under FOIA, DPA and any other rights of access.

Regards

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

Will you please let me have your reply to my 15th June 2011 correspondence.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Dear Burnside,

You wrote to me on the 15 June 2011 as follows;

"I refer to your request for an internal review. I confirm that I am currently conducting a review of the PPS handling of your various FoI requests. As you will appreciate there is considerable paperwork and a number of interviews to be carried out. I expect to have the review completed within 28 days.", as above.

It has been more than 28 days since you wrote to me and I have not had the information I requested. Moreover, the PPS are have breached the FOIA left, right and center when dealing with my FOI requests. You will be aware that I requested a review long before you wrote to me on the 15th June 2011. I also understand that such reviews must be carried out by law within 20 working days of the request.

It is concerning that you, PPS have also ignored my correspondence in this matter.

Please release the requested information by return.
I first made this request on the 14th Feb 2011, however, the PPS have used every trick in the book to delay this matter.

I look forward to your urgent reply.

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

Can you please reply to my correspondence and also deal with this request.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

Dear Mr Stephen Burnside T/Senior Assistant Director Public Prosecution,

You wrote to me, as above, on the 15th June 2011 as follows; “I confirm that I am currently conducting a review of the PPS handling of your various FoI requests. As you will appreciate there is considerable paperwork and a number of interviews to be carried out. I expect to have the review completed within 28 days.” That was ‘within 28 days’ of the date of your reply, 15th June 2011. However, as of today, 31st August 2011, I have still not had a reply nor have you completed your ‘review’. Moreover, I wrote to you, as above, on the 15th June 2011, you did not reply. I wrote to you again on the 28th June 2011, again, you did not reply. I again wrote on the 14th and 27th July, I still have not had any type of reply from you. You will also be aware that I made this request on the 14th Feb 2010, almost 7 months ago.

I requested an internal review of this request on the 11th of May 2011, almost 4 months ago. What in the name of god is going on, apart from the PSNI and PPS cover-up? This has to be the longest internal review in history. The act stated that such reviews must be carried out within 20 working days. Given the above, given it has now taken you, PPS 7 months, since I made this request, and 4 months, since I requested a review, I am expecting you, PPS to explain to me in detail why this matter is taking so long to deal with.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

======================================================
THE HMG COVER-UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NtCYswQk... On the 8th of August 1991 I was kidnapped by two convicted IRA terrorists, Jim McCarthy (CRJ); https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jim-McCar... and Paul 'Chico' Hamilton; https://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Chic... and held at gun-point, I escaped by jumping from the flat window. However, for the past 20 years the PSNI (and RUC), PPS, MI5 and other organs of HMG have been protecting both men. The PPS and the PSNI continue to this day to cover-up my kidnapping, as above request shows. Here is more info on same: https://www.facebook.com/pages/PSNI-PPS-...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Corruptio...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48716043/ALSO-...

Long runs the Fox.

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

http://www.causes.com/causes/548596

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Dead-Men-W...

https://www.facebook.com/BritishAgents

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

THE HMG COVER-UP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NtCYswQk... On the 8th of August 1991 I was kidnapped by two convicted IRA terrorists, Jim McCarthy (CRJ); https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jim-McCar... and Paul 'Chico' Hamilton; https://www.facebook.com/pages/Paul-Chic... and held at gun-point, I escaped by jumping from the flat window. However, for the past 20 years the PSNI (and RUC), PPS, MI5 and other organs of HMG have been protecting both men. The PPS and the PSNI continue to this day to cover-up my kidnapping, as above request shows. Here is more info on same: https://www.facebook.com/pages/PSNI-PPS-...
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Corruptio...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48716043/ALSO-...

Long runs the Fox.

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

http://www.causes.com/causes/548596

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Dead-Men-W...

https://www.facebook.com/BritishAgents

Martin McGartland

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

Will you please let me have your findings in this matter and stop causing me furter delay.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Info, Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

Mr McGartland, I acknowledge receipt of your email below,

Regards,

FOI Team
PPS
Belfast Chambers
Chichester Street
Belfast

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland

Dear Info,

You 'acknowledge'? Your over 4 months too late for that. You gave me your word in June 2011 that I would have a full reply regards this request and also your findings of the 'review' which you claimed was being carried out, a review which I was told by you would be completed within 30 days.

I am still waiting for this. I have been asking for update and you continute to ignore me.

Please deal with this request and supply me with the information and also the findings of this loooooong awaited 'review'.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

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

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Martin McGartland

Dear Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland,

I will this morning be making a complaint to the ICO concerning this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Read all about the State cover-up in the Martin McGartland cases; http://www.scribd.com/marty_mcgartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Info, Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

Mr McGartland, I am advised that the review of the prosecution decision
and the FOI review which you had sought cannot be completed until
further information which has been requested from the PSNI is received.
I believe that this has been communicated to you directly by Ms O'Kane,
Assistant Director, Policy Section. I hope this information is of use to
you. Yours sincerely, PPS FOI Section.

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland

Dear Info,

You are well aware that I have already made complaints to the ICO concerning this and other requests.

The above shows that you, PPS have ignored my correspondence and you did not deal with the review, as above, as you claim you would do when you wrote to me in June 2011, you stated that you would do so within 28 days. You never wrote to me since concerning that 'review'.

You are now claiming in your 6th Dec 2011 reply that;
"Mr McGartland, I am advised that the review of the prosecution decision and the FOI review which you had sought cannot be completed until further information which has been requested from the PSNI is received.
I believe that this has been communicated to you directly by Ms O'Kane, Assistant Director, Policy Section. I hope this information is of use to
you. Yours sincerely, PPS FOI Section."

I need to be frank with you and the PPS, that is a Lie, it is part of the PPS and PSNI cover-up. Nothing of the sort, as to put it; " ... has been communicated to you directly by Ms O'Kane ...". You will see this is the case when you read the following emails.

You are well aware that Ms O'Kane is dealing with only
the prosecution decision, she has nothing whatsoever to do with the FOI requests that I made almost 11 months ago. Moreover, I have included copies of emails between Ms O'Kane and myself, but you will see that she did not inform me of the above, she and the PPS are also ignoring me emails;

Dec 1 2011 (6 days ago)
To ********************

Dear Ms OKane,

Can I please have the PPS's reply to my 14th November 2011 email.

Will you also let me know why the PPS are still delaying this matter. Is it normal for a review of a case to take more than 9 months?

Martin McGartland
ENDS

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Marty McGartland <mart******@******.com> wrote:

Dear Ms O'Kane,

You state that: "I am awaiting a reply from DCI Baxter in relation to an email sent to her on 20th October 2011. A reminder was sent on 13th November 2011. Stage 2 of the review will be progressed upon receipt of DCI Baxter's response." I would have thought that such an important action would have been carried out long before now i.e. during the past 9 months or before you completed your stage 1 of the review. This is not what you told me a number of weeks ago. You continue to dither, delay and cause me yet even more stress.

You told me that you had completed stage 1 and that you had sent it to Mr Rea to deal with stage 2.
This is an absolute disgrace and you and the PPS are causing me even further delay and stress.
I'm not at all surprised that DCI Baxter is delaying this matter, she has lots of reasons for doing so.

It was she (on the orders of others) who hid the compelling evidence in this case, that which I sent to PPS in early Feb 2011. Ms Baxter was (and is) also involved in the cover-up in this case.

I suspect that you nor any other person/s within the PPS will be asking questions about these issues. Failure by the PPS to do so means that they too are up to their necks in the cover-up and wrongdoing. In my view, the PPS is no different from the Police Ombudsman, in fact, from he dealings I have had with the PPS they are far more corrupt.

I will be asking all the questions of Ms Baxter and the PSNI even if the PPS are not. It is a closed shop and I have absolutely no faith in you Ms O;Kane nor any other person within the PPS nor have I in the PSNI.

I am very concerned that you and the PPS are failing to take compelling evidence into account while dealing with my case. I have asked you so many times about the TCG logs, documents and information. Those documents are very important to this case, however, you and others within the PPS are ignoring same. You have not as yet confirmed if they are being taking into account.

Regards the TCG logs, records. I will ask you, PPS once again;

Question: Have the PPS requested or been supplied with the TCG logs relating to my case, those relating to my 8th August 1991 kidnapping case. If not please explain why not?

I hope you and the PPS will now deal with this matter and stop making lame excuses and stop delaying the matter.

Failure by the PPS to consider such important and compelling evidence in this (or any other case) is, in my view, perverting the course of justice.

I will once again place on the record that I am very keen to attend any court hearing in Northern Ireland at any stage to give evidence against two of my kidnappers. I maintain that both men are being protected by you, the PPS and the PSNI because they were or are police informers.

I will be pursuing the case and I will leave no stone unturned until I get justice. I am also reserving all my legal rights relating to tall matters concerning this case.

Martin McGartland
ENDS

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 12:36 PM, ************ <****************.gov.uk> wrote:
Dear Mr McGartland

Marianne O'Kane has asked me to forward you the following message:

I am awaiting a reply from DCI Baxter in relation to an email sent to her on 20th October 2011. A reminder was sent on 13th November 2011. Stage 2 of the review will be progressed upon receipt of DCI Baxter's response.

Regards

Marianne O'Kane
ENDS

As you can see from above emails Ms O'Kane told me nothing of the sort, moreover, this is a FOI request and it is not her office to be commenting on nor interfering in. It is also noted that you at no time informed me of the above before I made my complaints to the ICO.

I suspect your 6th of Dec 2011 reply is for the eyes and/or benefit of others, ICO included. That being the reason I have included the above emails.

I have once again written to Ms O'Kane today, however, she and the PPS continue to ignore my emails. Ms O’Kane and the PPS have good reason to do so given the scale of the cover-up that she, PPS and the PSNI are involved in.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Martin McGartland

Dear Mr Pope – PPS,

You will be aware that the ICO wrote to you, PPS on 11/01/2012 about this and other requests. The PPS have been given 20 days to deal with this/other internal reviews.

The PPS are involved in Corruption while dealing with me, my cases. The PPS (and PSNI) are also concealing compelling evidence in my kidnapping case, they are also protecting two Police informers, two convicted IRA terrorists i.e. my kidnappers;

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

ICO letter – 20 days to deal with requests:

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

I hope you, PPS will now stop cease covering up and stop concealing information in this matter.

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

The PPS are involved in Corruption while dealing with me, my cases. The PPS (and PSNI) are also concealing compelling evidence in my kidnapping case, they are also protecting two Police informers, two convicted IRA terrorists i.e. my kidnappers;

What The Hell are the PPS and PSNI up to?

Answer, Corruption, concealing of evidence ...

SEE HERE:
http://www.scribd.com/martymcgartland/d/...

ICO letter – 20 days to deal with requests: http://www.scribd.com/martymcgartland/d/...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Scottish Information Commissioner concealing Martin McGartland's name and asks Strathclyde Police's Chief Constable to do same. The State Cover-up

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

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Info, Public Prosecution Service Northern Ireland

17^th April 2012

 

 

Dear Mr McGartland

 

I write in connection with your requests of various dates for reviews to
be undertaken concerning five requests submitted to the Public Prosecution
Service under the Freedom of Information Act.

 

I can advise you that I have completed my review.

 

In each case I confirm the original decision.

 

I have taken a considerable time to review these earlier requests and I
have consulted in detail with the decision makers and I have requested
further information from police in order to inform my review, this led to
considerable delay which I regret.

 

I am satisfied that all the appropriate procedures and processes were
applied and that the FOI/legislation was properly interpreted and that a
full explanation was provided.  I am satisfied that the explanation and
reasoning was correct and accurate and that the correct decision was made
in respect of these requests.

 

If having followed the Departments review process, you are still
dissatisfied you may wish to apply directly to the Information
commissioner for a decision.  The Information commissioner can be
contacted at:

 

                   Information Commissioner’s Office

                   Wycliffe House

                   Water Lane

                   Wilmslow

                   Cheshire

                   SK9 5AF

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

STEPHEN BURNSIDE

T/Senior Assistant Director

.

Martin McGartland

Dear Mr Burnside,

I was aware that you were given this task to cover-up and whitewash in this case, which you have now done. However, I did not think it would have taken you the best part of 10 months to carryout a simply review of this matter. The above shows that the PPS have not dealt with this case properly, it also highlights the fact that the PPS are in no way independent of the Police and it shows that the PPS are protecting Bent PSNI officers and even the two Police Informers, convicted PIRA terrorists (and my kidnappers), Jim McCarthy (CRJ) and Paul 'Chico' Hamilton.

It also proves that you are a Yes man and that you are not fit to deal with such matters.

I have already made complaints about this and all other requests that you and the PPS have whitewashed and I am awaiting the outcome from the ICO. However, the ICO are not dealing with my cases correctly nor within the law. I maintain that they are being unduly influenced by others while dealing with my cases.

If the PPS think that this is the end of this matter they can think again. It is a clear case of misfeasance in public office and corruption.

As a result of your reply I will need to make further FOI requests.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk