RE Removal of protestors by force from zones/safety zones by SIA personnel
Dear South Yorkshire Police,
In an article published by the Yorkshire Post on Tuesday 16 January 2018 (https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/we-...)
Streets Ahead spokesman Darren Butt states regarding the use of force to handle tree protestors that:
“However, from today people who do deliberately obstruct our work on the highway will be removed from the zones. This is a decision which is supported by professional legal advice and follows extensive dialogue with Sheffield City Council and South Yorkshire Police.
Can you please provide the following:
1. The number of face-face meetings or teleconferences between SYP and/or Amey and/or Sheffield City Council where discussions or dialogue took place regarding the removal of protestors by force from zones/safety zones by SIA personnel .
1.1 Any deliverables, notes, documents, minutes, communications, handouts created in preparation, organisation or the result of these meetings.
2. Any electronic communication between between SYP and/or Amey and/or Sheffield City Council where discussions or dialogue took place regarding the removal of force from zones/safety zones. To assist and narrow your scope of search I believe the records Will have been created in January 2018, December 2017 and November 2017.
The officers engaged in dialogue with Amey will have insight when communications regarding this subject began.
Yours faithfully,
Marcus Combie
Dear Mr Combie
Please find attached our response to your Freedom of Information request.
Regards
Lucy Moore
South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Professional Standards Department
Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY
Email - [South Yorkshire Police request email]
SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email
or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp
Dear FOI,
Please pass on my thanks to Lucy Moore for you her response. I'll await your response to item 3 for when searches have been complete.
Kind Regards
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
I am writing requesting an update on this FOI.
Two weeks have elapsed since you last response, the upper bound given when you expected to have received the results.
Please provide the status of the remaining element of my request. This issue is even more time sensitive given South Yorkshire Polices increased involvement with Amey and observing people been removed by force. My request was made before this public announcement. As such the details I requested are pertinent to the current situation on the ground, I am asking for an update today and the release of the outstanding element of my request.
Any further delay can be seen as SYP holding up publication until the records requested are no longer relevant to the current events.
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
You're final response the last element in this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, the authority should have responded by now.
Please not this request was submitted prior to the 26 January 2018 date for the Op Quito Publication Strategy.
A referral will be made to the ICO citing your excessive delay in providing the information on Friday 13th if no response or reason for this prolonged delay is provided.
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
Following our phone conversation today. I look forward to receiving a response as to protracted delay in fulfilling this freedom of information request.
I'ld like to draw your attention to your statement in your previous response:
" I am anticipating this to be within 1 – 2 weeks. Your request will remain open on our systems until this is completed. " This doesn't correlate with what you disclosed over the phone that my request was now bundled with all other information regarding to "tree issues"
I appreciate your response that SYP is fully aware it is breaching it's obligations under the Freedom Act 2001.
I also note your response over the phone that you were not aware of when the SYP FOI team was aware of the publication strategy for Operation Quito.
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear Mr Combie
As requested and as discussed on the phone a little earlier, we are currently reviewing all documentation that encompasses all recorded information across the force in connection with the tree felling in Sheffield, be it ad hoc information or the balance of any documents in connection with Operation Testate and of course Operation Quito.
As I have tried to explain to you, this is a huge task and we are working as expeditiously as possible to publish the documentation.
As discussed this exercise has impacted and delayed my response to you. As previously communicated, I was 'anticipating' being in a position to provide you with a response within 1 - 2 weeks. However, this was not a commitment, simply an indication of when I believed I would be in a position to be able to respond at the time. You are of course perfectly within your rights to appeal and request an Internal Review or contact the Information Commissioners office. As also discussed the Information Commissioner is fully aware of this situation.
Regards
Lucy Moore
South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Performance & Governance
Unit 20
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY
T: 0114 2921788 (ext: 711788)
Website address - southyorks.police.uk
Dear Ms Moore,
Thanks for taking to talk to me today. I take on-board the comments and your statements in this email and over the phone.
I do appreciate time involved to collate and review the information. However, it was a SYP decision to batch the publishing and disclosure of operation Testate and Quito. This is despite the FOI been received before the creation of operation Quito publishing schedule, and operation Testate not having one.
This negates SYP reliance on information intended for for publication exemption.
I also note the options available you presented. As I said previously SYP is over the statuary time required to issue a final response, as such waived the right to an internal review - as such a referral to the ICO was made on close of business on April 13th.
Thanks again for getting back to me today.
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
Please conduct an internal review of this request.
The exemption given does not apply to this FOI request.
This FOI was submitted prior to the drafting and creation of the publication strategy for Operation Quito, as such the exemption applied is not applicable, as the publication strategy came into existence AFTER my FOI was submitted.
When handling this internal review please address the issue that this FOI was submitted prior to the publication strategy for operation Quito, and operation Testate had no publication strategy.
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
Addendum to 19 April 2018 email for internal review.
Another matter I would like you to review in your internal review.
The request was made for the following:
1.1 Any deliverables, notes, documents, minutes, communications, handouts created in preparation, organisation or the result of these meetings.
2. Any electronic communication between between SYP and/or Amey and/or Sheffield City Council where discussions or dialogue took place regarding the removal of force from zones/safety zones. To assist and narrow your scope of search I believe the records Will have been created in January 2018, December 2017 and November 2017.
Regarding the [ 5th February 2018 ] meeting identified in your response 13 February 2018. There is an audio recording of this meeting, as such would be a deliverable and contemporaneous record of the meeting as such would fall under the scope of this request.
In it's response SYP said no information was held. In your review, please release this audio file of the 5th February 2018 meeting. Please redact by means of either white noise, sinusoidal tone or any other means you deem fit (while preserving the length of redaction in the audio file) any portion of this audio record that may contain personal information, information about legal powers or any other information that would prevent the files release.
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Dear FOI,
Please advise on the status of the internal review for FOI Reference No: 20180109.
I draw your attention to Paragraphs 39 to 41 of Section 45 - Code of Practice by the ICO on FOI request
handling covering the internal review process and stressing the importance of keeping the applicant informed at all stages on:
- the progress of the complaint; and
- the likely timescale for completion
Public FOI: 20180923
Internal review for 20180923 submitted on 29 May 2018, review completed on 29 June 2018
This FOI 20180109
Internal review for 20180109 submitted on 16 May 2018, review not completed.
A comparison for another internal review submitted 2 weeks after my request, was completed at the end of June. The internal review for my request is outstanding.
Please by way of reply indicate the progress of the complaint, and the likely timescale for completion.
Yours sincerely,
Marcus Combie
Marcus Combie
[1][FOI #457879 email]
Dear Mr Combie
Freedom of Information Internal Review
With reference to your correspondence relating to three FOI requests
submitted to South Yorkshire Police as outlined below.
I accept that the contents of the correspondence constitute an appeal
following an expression of dissatisfaction following the responses that
was sent to you. In my position as the Force Data Protection Officer, I
am independent of the original decision making process
Review of the Original Decision
We are in receipt of three FOI requests submitted by yourself which are
recorded under the following reference numbers: -
20180109
1. The number of face-face meetings or teleconferences between SYP and/or
Amey and/or Sheffield City Council where discussions or dialogue took
place regarding the removal of protestors by force from zones/safety zones
by SIA personnel .
1.1 Any deliverables, notes, documents, minutes, communications, handouts
created in preparation, organisation or the result of these meetings.
2. Any electronic communication between between SYP and/or Amey and/or
Sheffield City Council where discussions or dialogue took place regarding
the removal of force from zones/safety zones. To assist and narrow your
scope of search I believe the records Will have been created in January
2018, December 2017 and November 2017.
The officers engaged in dialogue with Amey will have insight when
communications regarding this subject began.
20180371
On 23rd February 2018 Assistant Chief Constable David Hartley appeared on
Radio Sheffield with Toby Foster. Regarding this appearance on the radio
show, please provide the following:
1. A copy of the initial outreach communication record by either Radio
Sheffield or SYP and the other parties response in organizing and
co-ordinating this booking. Please then provide the rest of the
communications records related to this appearance.
2. Please provide any records, documents and information supplied to
Assistant Chief Constable David Hartley in preparation for the appearance
on Radio Sheffield as listed in item 1 above;
3. Please provide a copy of any records between Assistant Chief Constable
David Hartley, or any other relevant party that have fed information back
to Assistant Chief Constable David Hartley regarding tree felling works
with Amey and or Sheffield City Council from December 2017 through to the
present (at minimum 24th February).
Additionally, regarding the release of a statement published by Assistant
Chief Constable David Hartley on the SYP website and facebook:
In the opening paragraph the statement reads as:
"Following the announcement from Amey Plc that tree felling in Sheffield
will begin in the coming days, Assistant Chief Constable David Hartley
explains why there will be a higher level of police presence at the
sites."
4. Please provide the date and any records from Amey or Sheffield City
Council where SYP were informed "tree felling in Sheffield will begin in
the coming days"
"and maintain our approach of meeting all parties involved to explain our
role and thresholds for action."
5. In response to FOI 20180109 SYP police stated there had been one
non-minuted meeting between SYP and or Amey to discuss the removal of
protestors by force. Please provide dates of ALL meetings between SYP and
Amey and or Sheffield City Council. Between December 2017 through to the
present (at minimum 24th February).
6. Any and all agendas and records for any meetings between SYP and Amey
and or Sheffield City Council as listed in item 5 above;
6.1 Any and all notes and records from any meetings between SYP and Amey
and or Sheffield City Council as listed in item 5 above;
6.2 Any and all presentations and records distributed, displayed, and/or
otherwise disseminated between SYP and Amey and or Sheffield City Council
as listed in item 5 above;
6.3 Any and all feedback as a record from those in attendance on behalf of
SYP to any other staff member within SYP as listed in item 5 above.
For purposes of this request, the term “record” and "records" shall mean:
(1) any written,
printed, or typed material of any kind, including without limitation all
correspondence, memoranda, notes, messages, letters, cards, facsimiles,
papers, forms, messages, diaries, schedules, calendars, chronological
data, minutes, books, reports, charts, lists, ledgers, printed matter,
prospectuses, statements, statistics, surveys, agreements, transcripts,
magazine or newspaper articles, or press releases;
(2) any electronically, magnetically, or mechanically stored material of
any kind, including without limitation all electronic mail or e-mail;
(3) any graphic materials and data
compilations from which information can be obtained; and
(4) any materials using other
means of preserving thought or expression.
20180615
1. Any communication sent out by SYP FOI team in relation to FOI 20180371
to the various departments who record and hold the requested data.
2. Any and all replies and response from those departments outlined in 1
from departments who record and hold the requested data to SYP FOI team.
3. Identify when SYP FOI team was first advised that there was a
publication strategy for Operation Quito, and that it was drafted prior to
the date of the above request made to SYP.
4. Provide a copy of the publication strategy for Operation Quito.
On 17 May 2018 you submitted correspondence which has been logged as
internal reviews into these requests.
Please conduct an internal review of this request.
The exemption given does not apply to this FOI request.
This FOI was submitted prior to the drafting and creation of the
publication strategy for Operation Quito, as such the exemption applied is
not applicable, as the publication strategy came into existence AFTER my
FOI was submitted.
When handling this internal review please address the issue that this FOI
was submitted prior to the publication strategy for operation Quito, and
operation Testate had no publication strategy.
Another matter I would like you to review in your internal review.
The request was made for the following:
1.1 Any deliverables, notes, documents, minutes, communications, handouts
created in preparation, organisation or the result of these meetings.
2. Any electronic communication between between SYP and/or Amey and/or
Sheffield City Council where discussions or dialogue took place regarding
the removal of force from zones/safety zones. To assist and narrow your
scope of search I believe the records Will have been created in January
2018, December 2017 and November 2017.
Regarding the [ 5th February 2018 ] meeting identified in your response 13
February 2018. There is an audio recording of this meeting, as such would
be a deliverable and contemporaneous record of the meeting as such would
fall under the scope of this request.
In it's response SYP said no information was held. In your review, please
release this audio file of the 5th February 2018 meeting. Please redact by
means of either white noise, sinusoidal tone or any other means you deem
fit (while preserving the length of redaction in the audio file) any
portion of this audio record that may contain personal information,
information about legal powers or any other information that would prevent
the files release.
In addition, further correspondence was received in relation to request
20180615 chasing the response. This has now been provided and therefore I
have not addressed this in this internal review.
Firstly, I must apologise for the delay in finalising your requests and
internal reviews, unfortunately the work to collate and assess this
information has been immense and there are limited resources to undertake
such work.
I will address each of the points you have raised against the specific
requests to ensure that all your issues are addressed.
The internal review correspondence has been submitted via WhatDoTheyKnow
against our reference 20180109, but it is not clear whether the actual
questions apply to that specific request. In your internal review you
refer to a response for 20180109 exempting the disclosure under S22 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, this exemption was not engaged
for this request as, as you have pointed out, the publication strategy was
not published until after this request was submitted and therefore does
not apply in this case.
Our records do show that we engaged S22 in respect of reference 20180371.
I can now confirm that a significant amount of information has been
published under the strategy and this can be found on the following
website link: -
[2]https://www.southyorkshire.police.uk/fin...
This disclosure covers the areas in your requests other than the following
question: -
Regarding the [ 5th February 2018 ] meeting identified in your response 13
February 2018. There is an audio recording of this meeting, as such would
be a deliverable and contemporaneous record of the meeting as such would
fall under the scope of this request.
In its response SYP said no information was held. In your review, please
release this audio file of the 5th February 2018 meeting. Please redact by
means of either white noise, sinusoidal tone or any other means you deem
fit (while preserving the length of redaction in the audio file) any
portion of this audio record that may contain personal information,
information about legal powers or any other information that would prevent
the files release.
RESPONSE
Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires South Yorkshire
Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information
is exempt), to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
a. states that fact,
b. specifies the exemption in question and
c. states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.
The following exemption applies to the disclosure of the information:
Section 42(1) – Legal Professional Privilege
This states:
42(1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional
privilege…could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information.
Section 42 is a qualified, class-based exemption, therefore I am required
to carry out a public interest test.
Factors favouring disclosure
There is a legitimate and significant public interest in the Tree Felling
activities in Sheffield. Disclosure would be seen as embracing an ethos
of openness, accountability and transparency, as well as furthering
understanding of the Force’s involvement in these activities. Disclosure
at this time would further inform the public debate and comment in ‘real
time’.
Factors favouring non-disclosure
There is a substantial inherent public interest in the section 42
exemption which protects the principle of legal privilege. The principle
safeguards the confidentiality and openness of all legal or legally
related communications and exchanges between legal advisor and client thus
ensuring access to full and frank legal advice, which in turn is
fundamental to the wider administration of justice. If communications
between legal advisor and client were routinely disclosed there would be a
disincentive to seek legal advice and advice may be diminished due to the
fear of it being disclosed.
Balancing Test
When conducting the balancing test I have taken into consideration the
public interest around the Tree Felling and the importance of the
principle behind legal professional privilege. I have also sought legal
advice from the Force’s Legal Services.
The dominant purpose of the documentation was for the purpose of advice
privilege. This extends to confidential communications and exchanges made
for the purpose of seeking or giving legal advice in the context of legal
obligations or remedies. This advice had a legal function including legal
advice on remedies available.
There is a strong public interest in maintaining the principle of legal
professional privilege. As such, the public interest factors favouring
disclosure must at least equal the significant public interest in
maintaining the section 42 exemption.
In this case, the public interest arguments in favour of disclosure are
considerable. The Tree Felling exercise in Sheffield is a very emotive
issue that has invoked significant responses for the community, both from
individuals who do not agree with the need for the tress to be felled and
also those who support the exercise.
Against that, there is a very real and significant public interest in
protecting the longstanding principle of legal privilege. The Chief
Constable’s ability to communicate freely and frankly with legal advisors
in confidence and receive advice in confidence is vital. Wider than that,
the ability to access full and frank legal advice is a fundamental
cornerstone to the British legal system. Additionally, whilst the Inquests
have now concluded, the advice is recent and still current.
Therefore, whilst I recognise and understand the significant public
interest in the Tree Felling and in particular, South Yorkshire Police’s
involvement, on balance I am of the opinion that, in this case, the public
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in
disclosing it.
If you are still dissatisfied with how your request has been handled, you
can raise this with the Information Commissioner. Contact details below:
-
Information Commissioner’s Office
Water Lane
Wilmslow,
Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Telephone: 08456 306060 or 01625 545745
Website: [3]www.ico.org.uk
Yours sincerely
Gill Bower-Lissaman
Data Protection Officer
South Yorkshire Police
Information Compliance Unit
Performance and Governance
Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park
Churchill Way
Sheffield
S35 2PY
Email – [email address]
Please note that police forces in the United Kingdom are routinely
required to provide information and statistics to government bodies and
the recording criteria is set nationally. However, the systems used for
recording these figures are not generic, nor are the procedures used
locally in capturing the data. It should be noted that for these reasons
this forces response to your questions should not be used for the
comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.
South Yorkshire Police provides you the right to request a re-examination
of your case under its review procedure (copy enclosed). If you decide to
request such a review and having followed the Constabulary’s full process
you are still dissatisfied, then you have the right to direct your
comments to the Information Commissioner who will give it consideration.
The South Yorkshire Police in complying with their statutory duty under
sections 1 and 11 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the
enclosed information will not breach the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the enclosed
information will continue to be protected by law. Applications for the
copyright owner’s written permission to reproduce any part of the attached
information should be addressed to Legal Services, South Yorkshire Police,
Police Headquarters, Carbrook House, 5 Carbrook Hall Road, Sheffield, S9
2EH.
SYP Alerts offers information about local policing issues by text, email
or voice message. Sign-up now at www.sypalerts.co.uk #SignMeUp
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[FOI #457879 email]
2. https://www.southyorkshire.police.uk/fin...
3. http://www.ico.org.uk/
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now