Performance and Risk 020 7035 4848
Directorate
(switchboard)
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
www.gov.uk
Mr P John
request-351391-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
8 March 2017
request-351391-
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr John,
Freedom of Information Request (our ref: 40731) – Internal Review
Thank you for your e-mail, dated 4 January 2017, in which you requested an internal
review of the Department’s handling of your FOI request for information regarding the
Daniel Morgan Independent Panel.
A copy of your original FOI request can be found at Annex A of this letter. The Home
Office’s response and your request for an internal review can be found at Annexes B and
Annex C respectively.
I have now completed the review. I have examined all the relevant information, and have
consulted the policy unit which provided the original response. I have considered whether
the correct procedures were followed. I can also confirm that I was not involved in the
initial handling of your request.
My conclusion is that the original response was correct.
I have looked at each of your questions from your original request and how they were
answered by the Department.I will comment on them in order:
Question 1):
Confirm or deny that the panel remains on track to complete its remit in
Autumn 2016?
I find that the answer given was reasonable in that it gave an indicative date for
competition in early 2017.
Question 2):
The date when the report will be made available to each of the Morgan
family, the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, the Metropolitan Police, journalists,
the alleged murderers, and the general public?
1
The Home Office gave an indicative date of
‘early 2017’ when it expected to present the
report to the Home Secretary and family members, after which it would be available to the
public.
The timing and the release of any information to the Press would of course be dependent
on the progress of the enquiry, its expected completion date and in discussion with family
members. Further details were not known at the time of the request.
Question 3):
Whether a process of 'Maxwellisation' will be applied to criticism of
police, journalists, and alleged murderers?
The Home Office’s response stated that “anybody who may be subject to criticism by the
Panel will be notified and given a fair opportunity to respond to any proposed criticisms
before the report is finalised and published”.
I therefore consider question 3 of be answered fully using the definition of Maxwellisation
as the legal practice in English and Scots law that allows persons who are to be criticised
in an official report to respond prior to publication, based on details of the criticism
received in advance.
Question 4)
Any project plan, financial performance, or progress report made to the
Home Office by the DMIP (as referenced in the Management Statement on the DMIP
web site) Your internal review request stated that you were particularly interested in the Department
reconsidering its response to this question. You also stated that the FOI request did not
confirm or deny whether such reporting information exists.
I agree that the Department did not explicitly confirm or deny if the requested information
exists. However I do find that by carrying out a public interest test (in relation to disclosure
of the information) we did in effect indirectly provide confirmation. I agree that this should
have been made clearer. I can now confirm that at the time of the request there were
several documents held by the Department that were in scope of the request.
The decision not to disclose the requested information was based on the Department’s
application of the exemption at section 22 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Under section 22, the Home Office is not obliged to provide information which is scheduled
to be published. At the time of the request, I can confirm that there was a view that the
Panel would be publishing its report within a reasonable timescale from the date of the
request.
The public interest test found in favour of not disclosing this information citing that it was in
the public interest to ensure that the publication of official information is undertaken in a
properly planned and managed process. The panel must ensure that the information
intended for publication meets the standards and requirements set for publications. It
would therefore be unfair to release this information prior to meeting such standards.
It may be helpful to explain that this is not necessarily a ‘quality threshold’. The standards
and requirements include considerations around the early release of information. This
could lead to misinterpretation and create negative or unwanted Press coverage that can
potentially impact on sensitive ongoing processes.
2
Given the importance and the sensitivities around the enquiry I believe section 22 was
engaged correctly and that the arguments in favour of withholding the information
outweighed the arguments for releasing the information as set out in the original Public
Interest arguments.
Question 5)
The number of times that episodes of the popular Untold Murder
Podcast have been downloaded by staff in the Home Office? I can confirm that the Department was correct to state that this information is not held.
Staff do not have the ability to access iTunes or any other podcast hosting sites on
corporate systems.
Finally, I would like to apologise for the delay in responding to your initial request. It
appears this was due to the number of areas in the Home Office being consulted on the
response. Staff are very aware of the importance of responding to FOI requests in a timely
manner.
This completes the internal review.
If you remain dissatisfied, you have the right of complaint to the Information Commissioner
at the following address:
The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Yours sincerely
J. Collins
Information Rights Team
Switchboard: 020 7035 4848
E-mail
: xxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
3
Annex A – FOI request – 12 August 2016
From: P. John
[mailto:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx] Sent: 12 August 2016 12:43
To: FOI Requests
Subject: 40731 - Daniel Morgan Panel: Timetable
Dear Home Office,
I understand the Home Office is responsible for processing FoIA requests relating to the
Daniel Morgan Independent Panel (DMIP).
On the DMIP web site, they state that "The Panel hopes to present its Final Report to the
members of Daniel Morgan’s family and the Home Secretary in the Autumn of 2016".
Given the panel is therefore (presumably) nearing completing of its work, could you
disclose to me;
1) Confirm or deny that the panel remains on track to complete its remit in Autumn 2016
2) The date when the report will be made available to each of the Morgan family, the
Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, the Metropolitan Police, journalists, the alleged
murderers, and the general public
3) Whether a process of 'Maxwellisation' will be applied to criticism of police, journalists,
and alleged murderers
4) Any project plan, financial performance, or progress report made to the Home Office by
the DMIP (as referenced in the Management Statement on the DMIP web site)
5) And finally... the number of times that episodes of the popular Untold Murder Podcast
have been downloaded by staff in the Home Office (via *)
Yours faithfully,
P John
4
Annex B – FOI Response – 9 January 2017
Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request (Our Reference
40731)
Thank you for your email of 12 August 2016, in which you ask for the following information
regarding the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel (DMIP).
1) Confirm or deny that the panel remains on track to complete its remit in Autumn
2016
2) The date when the report will be made available to each of the Morgan family,
the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister, the Metropolitan Police, journalists, the
alleged murderers, and the general public
3) Whether a process of 'Maxwellisation' will be applied to criticism of police,
journalists, and alleged murderers
4) Any project plan, financial performance, or progress report made to the Home
Office by the DMIP (as referenced in the Management Statement on the DMIP web
site)
5) And finally... the number of times that episodes of the popular Untold Murder
Podcast have been downloaded by staff in the Home Office (via *)
Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. I would like to apologise for the delay in responding.
In regards to your first two questions, the Panel’s original terms of reference anticipated it
would take about 12 months from the start of the substantive work on the papers to it
being in a position to submit its report to the Home Secretary. The position has been kept
under review and the time extended due to the large amount of material gathered over the
past 29 years that has had to be carefully scrutinised. The Panel hopes to present its Final
Report to the members of Daniel Morgan’s family and the Home Secretary in early 2017,
after which, it will be made available to the public.
In regards to your third question, anybody who may be subject to criticism by the Panel will
be notified and given a fair opportunity to respond to any proposed criticisms before the
report is finalized and published.
In regards to your fourth question, the Panel will publish project cost information on its
website when the Panel has concluded its work. I therefore consider that this information is
exempt from disclosure under section 22(1) of the FOI Act (information intended for future
publication). This is a qualified exemption, which requires us to consider the balance of the
public interest in disclosing the information at this stage or maintaining the exemption.
Arguments for and against disclosure in terms of the public interest with the reasons for
our conclusion, are set out in
Annex A.
In regards to your fifth question, the Home Office does not hold the information which you
have requested. Home Office users do not have iTunes installed on any corporate
systems. If users did download any material from iTunes, this would be on their own
personal systems and not via Home Office secure networks.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review
of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address
below, quoting reference
40731. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you
could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
5
Information Rights Team
Home Office
Third Floor, Peel Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
Email
: xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be
reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you
remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the
Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Yours sincerely
S Mason
Information Rights Team
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
Email
xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xx
6
Public Interest Test
Freedom of Information request from P John (reference 40731)
Information requested
4) Any project plan, financial performance, or progress report made to the Home
Office by the DMIP (as referenced in the Management Statement on the DMIP web
site)
Response
The Home Office considers the information the information that has been requested to be
exempt from disclosure on the grounds that the information is intended for future
publication. The information is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 22 of the
FOI Act. This exemption is defined in the Act as follows:
22 (1) Information is exempt information if –
a) The information is held by the public authority with a view to its publication,
by the authority or any other person, at some future date (whether
determined or not),
b) The information was already held with a view to such publication at the time
when the request for information was made, and
c) It is reasonable in all the circumstances that the information should be
withheld from disclosure until the date referred to in paragraph (a).
Public Interest in relation to section 22
Some of the exemptions in the FOI Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to
a public interest test (PIT). This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure
against the public interest in favour of withholding the information, or the considerations for
and against the requirements to say whether the information requested is held or not. We
must carry out a PIT where we are considering using any of the qualified exemptions in
response to a request for information.
The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT we
consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is
released or not. Transparency and the ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need
to enable effective government and to serve the bests interests of the public.
The FOI Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the
motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are
expressing a willingness to provide a response to anyone, including those who might
represent a threat to the UK.
Considerations in favour of disclosing the information
There is a general public interest in the immediate disclosure of information to ensure
transparency and accountability. There is public interest in the public having access to and
being provided with sufficient information to the quality of decision making, such as any
project plan, financial performance, or progress report made to the Home Office by the
Panel.
7
Considerations in favour of maintaining the exemption
It is in the public interest to ensure that the publication of official information is a properly
planned and managed process. The Panel must ensure that the information intended for
publication meets the standards and requirements set for publications. It would therefore
be unfair to release this information prior to meetings such standards.
Moreover, there is a public interest in permitting the Panel to publish information in a
manner and form of its own choosing which could be undermined by previous disclosure.
Conclusion
We recognise the public interest in disclosing the information, which is why the Panel will
publish details of project costs when it has concluded its work. We therefore conclude that
the balance of the public interest lies in maintaining the exemption and withholding the
information.
8
Annex C – Internal Review Request – 11 January 2017
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request
'Daniel Morgan Panel: Timetable'.
I would be grateful if you would consider the mis-handling of this request in its entirety; the
failure to answer my request, the resulting ICO Decision Notice, your beach of the ICO
Decision Notice, and the resulting response you supply in lieu of the information originally
requested is utterly utterly inadequate.
In particular, I would like you to reconsider your response to q4, which seeks disclosure of;
"4) Any project plan, financial performance, or progress report made to the Home Office by
the DMIP (as referenced in the Management Statement on the DMIP web site)"
In your response you tell me the DMIP "will publish project cost information on its website
when the Panel has concluded its work". That is not acceptable.
Firstly; you have not confirmed or denied whether such reporting information exists at all
(as required by the FoIA). So I would like you to confirm or deny whether the DMIP have
furnished the Home Office with the progress reports, financial performance information
that is identified in the Management Statement on the DMIP web site.
Secondly. it is not reasonable that the panel should overrun its original plan by twice the
timescale, and yet fail to account for the cumulative costs, or estimate future budget
requirements. I would like you to disclose that information, before rather than after the
process completes.
Incidentally, lest you doubt it, i don't resent a penny of the cost of this investigation. On the
contrary I would like to receive satisfactory confirmation that the process is being
adequately resourced at every single stage by the Home Office. The extended delay to the
DMIP, and your apparent recalcitrance to publish accounts & management reports,
strongly suggests that the HO are failing to provide sufficient support for the task to
complete. If so I would like the opportunity to petition my MP with sufficient information for
him to hold the Home Secretary to account.
Third, you say "the Panel must ensure that the information intended for publication meets
the standards and requirements set for publications". I don't recall a 'quality threshold' in
the FoIA that allows disclosure of information to be blocked simply because the documents
are poorly drafted. I am quite happy to accept poor quality information in response to a
FoIA request, rather than receive no information at all.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this
address:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/daniel_morgan_panel_timetable
Please note that - should you fail to complete this FoIA infernal review within the maximum
time limit specified by the ICO - you will (without any further notice) be subject to yet
another written complaint to the ICO about your handling of this matter.
Yours faithfully,
P. John
9