Are members of the Royal Family serving in the military subject to the Armed Forces Act

Chand Bakshi made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Defence

This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Ministry of Defence.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to know to what extent the members of the Royal Family serving in the Armed forces are subject to the law.
In particular I would like to know if the they are

1) Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006?

2) Could they be court court-martialed? For example a General Court-Martial?

3) With some members having served in recent conflicts (for example Prince Harry in Afghanistan) are they liable to prosecution for war crimes if any were to be committed?

4) Are the any laws prohibiting the U.K. handing them over to the International Criminal Court?

5) Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss these possibilities or produced materials for their staff and soldiers in dealing with royals in the military? If yes please provide copies of any meetings , training manuals etc.

Yours faithfully,

Chand Bakshi

Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm writing to inform you that your response to my Freedom Of Information Request 'Are members of the Royal Family serving in the military subject to the Armed Forces Act' is overdue.
If this is an error please update me on the status of my request, in the meantime I would like to request an internal review.
I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

DCDS PERS-SEC-GP MAILBOX (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel) Secretariat

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Level 7 Zone J

Main Building, Whitehall

London, SW1A 2HB

Telephone: 020 7218 9000

Your
reference:
Chand Bakshi Our SP/08/04/08
reference:
SMTP:[email address] 14-05-2009-110651-001
Date: 15 June 2009

Dear Chand

Many thanks for your correspondence dated 13 May 2009 which has been
considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000. You requested the following information:

To what extent the members of the Royal Family serving in the Armed Forces
are subject to the law. In particular you would like to know if they are:

a. Subject to the Armed forces Act of 2006

b. Could they be court-martialled

c. Are they liable to prosecution for war crimes if any
were to be

committed

d. Are there any laws prohibiting the UK handing them
over to the

International Criminal Court

e. Has the MOD held meetings to discuss these
possibilities or produced

materials for their staff and soldiers in dealing with royals in the
military. If yes please province copies of any meetings, training manuals
etc.

This letter is to inform you that the MOD holds some of the information
relating to your request, but we believe the information may fall within
the scope of the following qualified exemption: Section 37
(Communications with Her Majesty etc, and honours). Once we have
identified this information there may be further exemptions that apply.
As such it is necessary for us to decide whether, in all circumstances of
the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the
public interest in disclosure.

The Freedom of Information Act requires us to respond to requests
promptly, and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving
your request. However, as you know, we are considering information
relevant to your request against a qualified exemption, so we are
permitted to extend the time take to respond for a reasonable period to
allow for the conduct of a public interest test. I regret to inform you
that it has not yet been possible to complete the public interest test
required in this instance. We estimate that it will take

an additional 20 working days to take a final decision on where the
balance of public interest lies. We therefore plan to let you have a
response by 10 July 2009. If it appears that it will take longer than
this to reach a conclusion we will let you know.

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6^th Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [1][email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provision of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers o the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk

Yours faithfully

Original signed

Shaun Clowes

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Dear DCDS PERS-SEC-GP MAILBOX (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your response to my request.
While you examine if my request is exempt under Section 37(Communications with Her Majesty etc, and honours) please be aware that I didn't request copies actual communications between the MOD and the Royal Household. Questions A to D only really needs a Yes or No answer.
Question E is also for materials produced and used by the MOD not between the MOD and the Royal Household.
I do not believe that these would be exempt under Section 37
I will look forward to your next reply.

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

Dear DCDS PERS-SEC-GP MAILBOX (MULTIUSER),
Could I please check on the status of my request, I believe your REF is SP/08/04/08 To what extent the members of the Royal Family serving in the Armed
Forces are subject to the law.
In your last letter you stated you expected to respond by July 10th and would give notification if it was going to take longer.

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

Dear Sir or Madam,

Sorry to trouble you again, but the response is overdue from the date you gave, there has been no notification of further delay and no response to my request for a status update,there please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Are members of the Royal Family serving in the military subject to the Armed Forces Act'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ar...

Yours faithfully,

Chand Bakshi

MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Dear Mr Bakshi,

The Chief Information Officer – Head of Corporate Information has
asked me to acknowledge your request today via
www.whatdotheyknow.com in which you asked for an internal review of
your request for information, treated by the Chief of Defence Staff
(Personnel) Secretariat as a request under the Freedom of
Information Act (our reference: 14-05-2009-110651-001). We
currently aim to complete reviews within 40 working days of receipt
of the application. We therefore aim to complete the review and
respond to you by 28 September 2009 at the latest. The review will
involve a full and independent reconsideration of the decision
taken in respect of your request for information as well as the
handling of the case.

Meanwhile, I understand that you will receive a substantive
response to your request for information very shortly. I am sorry
there has been a delay.

FOI Internal Reviews Team

VC206 left an annotation ()

Sorry, but the code of conduct allows 20 days or less, not 40 days. 40 is for Subject Access

Dear MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Thank you for your reply. I will look forward to the 'substantive response'

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

DCDS PERS-SEC-PARLY C1 (Clowes, Shaun Mr),

Ministry of Defence

Main Building, Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB

Telephone 020 7218 9000

Deputy Chief Of Defence Staff (Personnel) - Secretariat

SP 01.02.04.03

14-05-2009-110651-001 Bakshi

Chand Bakshi

[1][email address] 20 July 2009

Dear Chand

Thank you for your e-mail of 13 May 2009 which has been considered to be a
request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act
2000. I am sorry for the delay in responding. You requested the
following information:

`Are members of the Royal Family serving in the military subject to the
Armed Forces Act. In particular, you would like to know if they are:

1. Subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006?

2. Could they be court-martialled? For example a General
Court

Martial?

3. With some members having served in recent conflicts
(for example

Prince Harry in Afghanistan) are they liable for prosecution for war
crimes if any were to be committed?

4. Are there any laws prohibiting the UK handing them
over to the

International Criminal Court?

5. Has the Ministry of Defence held meetings to discuss
these

possibilities or produced material for their staff and soldiers in dealing
with royals in the military? If yes please provide copies of any
meetings, training manuals etc".

The Freedom of Information Act provides applicants with a right of access
to recorded information. Your request is not a request for recorded
information. We would of course be happy to re-consider the question
asked should it be re-phrased as a request for recorded information. A
`valid' request under the Act is one that asks to see recorded information
held by the public authority, such as information on a specific issue, or
process, not one that asks for opinion or seeks answers or calculations
etc.

I am sorry that my previous letter, of 15 June, implied that we would
treat your request as a `valid' one under the Act, and explained that the
Ministry of Defence needed further time to consider the public interest
test. This was a mistake, for which I apologise, and we should have
written to you sooner to confirm that your email is not a legitimate
request.

However, outside our obligations under the Act, in response to your first
question, I am able to confirm that all members of the Armed Forces are
subject to the Armed Forces Act 2006.

I have not included details of our internal review procedure, or how to
complain to the Information Commissioner, as your questions are not valid
requests under the Act and these appeal procedures only apply to
legitimate requests.

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

VC206 left an annotation ()

Rx:2009-08-03 from "MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team" via CIO-FO-IR @ mod.uk:

# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team has used WhatDoTheyKnow to send you
# the message below. Your details have not been given to anyone,
# unless you choose to reply to this message, which will then go
# directly to the person who wrote the message.
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
#
# VC206,
#
# Para 42 of the Code of Practice issued under section 45 of the
# Freedom of Information Act obliges public authorities to: "set
# their own target times for dealing with complaints; these should be
# reasonable and subject to regular review." The target date set by
# MOD for dealing with complaints is 40 working days.
#
# Yours,
#
# MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team
#
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------
# View Freedom of Information requests made by MOD FOI Internal
# Reviews Team:
# http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/mod_f...
# ---------------------------------------------------------------------

^^ Not according to Good Practice Guidance.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

In view of all the above the Commissioner considers that a reasonable time
for completing an internal review is 20 working days from the date of the
request for review. "

Dear DCDS PERS-SEC-PARLY C1 (Clowes, Shaun Mr),

I’m writing in regards to my FOI Request Your Ref SP/08/04/08
There seems to be some confusion, at first it was being treated as a request and documents were being examined, then it was rejected as you claim it was not a valid request and in the meantime I asked for an Internal review because of the length of delays in responses.

This email is to request clarification on these issues and ask that the original request be answered.

You claim that my request is not valid as it asks for opinion not actual information held. I feel that this is pedantic as the questions 1 to 4 were obviously for documentation related to those matters and question 5 was a direct request for documentation held and I believe it is a valid request under the act.

However for your convenience I have clarified my requests and added further requests due to confusion with your previous answers.

1. You stated all members of the armed services are subject to the Armed Forces Act of 2006. Does the Ministry of Defence hold documentation exempting members of the Royal Family serving in the military from any part of the Armed Services Act?
If so please provide copies.

2. Does the Ministry of Defence hold documentation exempting members of the Royal Family serving in the military from court-martial?
If so please provide copies

3. With some members having served in recent conflicts (For example Prince Harry in Afghanistan) does the Ministry of Defence hold documentation exempting members of the Royal Family serving in the military from prosecution for war crimes if any were to be committed?
If so please provide copies.

4. Does the Ministry of Defence hold documentation exempting members of the Royal Family serving in the military from being handed the International Criminal Court? If so please provide copies.

5. Does the Ministry of Defence have any training manuals, guidelines, rules or other documentation produce for its personnel for use when dealing with members of the royal family serving in the military?

6. Please provide copies of the information and documents referred to in your reply of June 15th. Your quote: This letter is to inform you that the MOD holds some of the information relating to your request, but we believe the information may fall within the scope of the following qualified exemption: Section 37
(Communications with Her Majesty etc, and honours).

7. Please provide copies of an internal memos or emails relating to the request Your Ref SP/08/04/08

And finally could you please inform me if the Internal Review refereed to in the 31st of July mail (REF 14-05-2009-110651-001) is still active or was it cancelled because of the response of August 3rd?

I look forward to your reply and the documentation.

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

Dear Sir or Madam,

Could you please confirm receipt of my clarification to request Your Ref SP/08/04/08 sent on 5 September 2009?

Yours faithfully,

Chand Bakshi

MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Dear Mr Bakshi,

There is some confusion here. Perhaps it may help I review the
order of events: on 13 May 2009 you made a request for information
about members of the Royal Family serving in the Armed Forces (our
ref: 14-05-2009-110651-001); on 15 June 2009 you were advised by
the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel) Secretariat that your
request was considered to be a request for information iaw with the
Freedom of information Act 2000 and that MOD held some information
relevant to your request but that it might fall within the scope of
section 37 of the Act. Section 37 is a qualified exemption
requiring a Public Interest Test. You were therefore advised that
an additional 20 days were needed to decided where the balance of
the public interest lay. They planned to respond to you
substantively by 10 July 20009 or advise you if it was to take
longer. Following two hasteners to MOD on 15 June and 22 July you
requested an internal review on 31 July.

The FOI Internal Review Team acknowledged receipt of your request
same day and stated that they would aim to complete the review and
respond to you by 28 September 2009.

Since that date, you have received a substantive response to your
request from the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Personnel)
Secretariat at the end of which they have again reminded you of
your right to appeal if you are disatisfied with the response. On
the 5 September you wrote contesting the outcome of the substantive
response (namely, that the majority of your questions were not
legitimate requests for recorded information that could be answered
within the scope of the Act). You have now re-phrased your original
questions to make them more FOI compliant.

What would you like us to do? Either we can review the substative
response you received to your original request for information of
13 May 2009 - the internal review is still active and has not been
cancelled - or we can cancel the internal review and treat your
modified questions as a new request for information under the Act.
Please advise.

FOI Internal Review Team

Dear MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

thank you for the mail acknowledging receipt of my follow up to the request.
It is confusing a little, I think some of the confusion has arisen because I requested an internal review before I had received a response based solely on the lack of response to my request and the excessive time taken for exemption and subject access considerations based on the premise that my request was a valid one.
It was also stated that the information had been located and was relevant to my request.

May I ask that if the Internal Review continues, will it deal with events only up until I made the internal review request (JULY 31st) or will it include all subsequent events up until present?

If it includes all events and responses up until present then could it please continue.

You mention that I rephrased my questions to make them more FOI compliant, however they seemed FOI Compliant enough for you to locate information on them in the original request:
Your Quote: "This letter is to inform you that the MOD holds some of the information
relating to your request"
and if invalid why you were taking in excess of 40 days to apply exemptions and subject access to them?

Whilst waiting for the internal review could you please treat the following questions only as a new request:

A. Please provide copies of the information and documents referred
to in your reply of June 15th. Your quote: This letter is to inform
you that the MOD holds some of the information relating to your
request, but we believe the information may fall within the scope
of the following qualified exemption: Section 37 (Communications
with Her Majesty etc, and honours).

B. Please provide copies of an internal memos or emails relating to
the request Your Ref SP/08/04/08

If anything here remains unclear please provide a direct telephone number in your next response and I can call you to clarify if needed.

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Dear Mr Bakshi,

Thank you for your prompt reply. To clarfy, the review to which you
are entitled is a full independent internal review of the handling
of your request for information dated 13 May 2009 (our reference
14-05-2009-110651-001) and the substantive response you received to
it, dated 20 July 2009 which was not uploaded to this website until
3 August. It would include consideration of any interim
correspondence you received from MOD prior to the substantive
response sent to you and any subsequent attempts at informal
resolution. Would you like us to complete such a review?

Your request at (A) is a repeat of your original request. Public
Authorities are not obliged to respond to requests for the same
information more than once.

Your request at (B) is a request for new information and we shall
therefore forward it to the appropriate officials who will provide
you with a response in due course on behalf of MOD, in accordance
with the Act.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Internal Review Team

Dear MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Hi, sorry I am a little confused, you mention a substantive response. Are you referring to the reply of Aug 3rd? I might be mistaken here but it contains no files or attachments and is merely a rejection on the grounds of the request being 'invalid'.Is it possible an attachment is missing from this email?

You say that the request in my last email is a repeat of the original? However this is not the case.
You claim my original request was invalid so there no action was taken on it and yet at the same time you are not obliged to respond more than once.
In your email of the 3rd you state "We would of course be happy to re-consider the question asked should it be re-phrased as a request for recorded information. A 'valid' request under the Act is one that asks to see
recorded information"
I have clarified and rephrased my questions as YOU requested and they are 1 to 5 in the September 5th email. Please answer them.

Question A in my last email
"A. Please provide copies of the information and documents referredto in your reply of June 15th. Your quote: This letter is to inform you that the MOD holds some of the information relating to your request, but we believe the information may fall within the scope
of the following qualified exemption: Section 37 (Communications with Her Majesty etc, and honours)."

is a request for new information as to what 'recorded information' you were considering exemptions to. Please answer it.

I also wish the internal review to continue, however I need it to include the handling of the entire matter.

If this is easier to discuss on the phone I can call you to go over the points as it is a little confusing. Is this number 020 7218 9000 the correct number?
Also whom should I ask to speak to in the FOI team?

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Dear Mr Bakshi,

You have had two letters from MOD, one dated 15 June 2009 which
notified you that some information relevant to your request was
"held" but that extra time was needed to test the public interest
in relation to section 37 of the Act; and the other dated 3 August
2009 explained that the previous response was erroneous and that
your questions were not requests for recorded information and
therefore did not come within the scope of the Act.

You have now made the following requests:

1. An independent internal review of the handling and substance of
the response you received to your request of 13 May 2009.

2. A request for the metadata in relation to that response.

3. A request for the information that you were originally told MOD
held relating to your request but which subsequently you were
advised was incorrect.

4. Responses to your refined questions dated 5 September 2009
(prompted by the advice that MOD would be happy to re-consider them
if they were re-phrased to make them requests for recorded
information).

We shall undertake an internal review but, as previously advised,
the information that you were wrongly advised existed and was being
considered for release under s37 is a concomitant part of your
original request and the issue will be considered as part of that
review.

Your requests for the metadata in relation to the response to your
original request and responses to your refined questions are new
requests.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Internal Review Team

Dear MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Could I please check on the status of my Freedom of Information Request? ( Your REF SP/08/04/08 14-05-2009-110651-001 Original request, subsequent clarifications, additions and internal reviews.)
I believe all parts of this request are now overdue and have taken well in excess of the time recommended by the FOI guidelines.
Could you please update me on the status of the following?

1) The Internal Review of your handling of Freedom of Information Request Your REF SP/08/04/08 14-05-2009-110651-001. When is this review expected to be complete?

2) A request for the metadata (internal memos/emails etc relating to REF SP/08/04/08 14-05-2009-110651-001) What is the status of this request? I believe a response to this was due on October 13th.

3) A request for the information I was originally told MOD held relating to your request but which subsequently I was advised was incorrect. I find this confusing, I am unsure if you state that the data exists or not. As you were taking time to deliberate exemptions to it I presume it exists. When will the deliberations on exemptions be finished?

4) Response to my refined questions. I believe responses to these were due on October 13th.

I look forward to your reply

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Dear Mr Bakshi,

Let us take each of your questions in turn:

1) The Internal Review of your handling of Freedom of Information
Request Your REF SP/08/04/08 14-05-2009-110651-001. When is this
review expected to be complete?

A. We have had some unforeseen resource problems lately within the
Review Team which have only recently been addressed. The review is
underway. You will receive a reply asap.

2) A request for the metadata (internal memos/emails etc relating
to REF SP/08/04/08 14-05-2009-110651-001) What is the status of
this request? I believe a response to this was due on October 13th.

A. Your request has not been forwarded yet to MOD from this
website. As previously advised on screen the MOD FOI Ops team are
not resourced to monitor this website for new requests.

3) A request for the information I was originally told MOD held
relating to your request but which subsequently I was advised was
incorrect. I find this confusing, I am unsure if you state that the
data exists or not. As you were taking time to deliberate
exemptions to it I presume it exists. When will the deliberations
on exemptions be finished?

A. You have already flagged this up as a concern and the matter
will be investigated as part of the internal review of this
request.

4) Response to my refined questions. I believe responses to these
were due on October 13th.

A. This request has also not been forwarded yet to MOD from this
website for us to respond.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Internal Review team

CIO-FOI (MULTIUSER),

Dear Chand Bakshi,

Thank you for your correspondence dated 14 September 2009, for
information under The Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Apologies for not replying sooner but we have not received any previous
correspondence (5th September 2009) from you on this matter.

Regards,

MOD

show quoted sections

Dear MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

I would like to inquire about the status of my Freedom of Information Request Your Ref SP/08/04/08 and it’s component questions. I would also like to clarify some errors I believe have taken place.
First let me say I am sorry to hear you are having resource problems with your Review Team, I hope they have been resolved. However I do feel you have taken excessive time in responding to this request, deliberating exemptions and conducting internal reviews. To facilitate a speedy resolution I have once again listed my questions below, with my understanding of their status. I would be grateful if you could answer them and release any relevant recorded information as soon as possible.

1) Request for recorded information produced by the MOD for use in dealing with Royals in the military. Training manuals, copies of minutes from meetings etc.
You have stated that you hold this information and have been weighing possible exemptions to it since June 15th 2009. This appears to be part of the Internal Review I requested based only on your failure to respond not due to any exemptions being applied. Please give me a date that the internal review will be concluded, and whether exemptions were applied.
1A) Meta data request: As one of your replies contradicted you original statement that the MOD held relevant data please supply the recorded information that was being considered for exemption regardless of its relevance and also any internal memos/emails dealing with Request Your Ref SP/08/04/08.
Could you also please answer the questions that were clarified for you under you Section 16 obligations and arose from your previous responses? Receipt of these was confirmed in your response dated September 22nd 2009. I quote you: “Your requests for the metadata in relation to the response to your
original request and responses to your refined questions are new
requests.”
2) You stated all members of the armed services are subject to the
Armed Forces Act of 2006. Does the Ministry of Defense hold
documentation exempting members of the Royal Family serving in the
military from any part of the Armed Services Act? If so please provide copies.
3) Does the Ministry of Defense hold documentation exempting
members of the Royal Family serving in the military from
court-martial? If so please provide copies
4) With some members having served in recent conflicts (For example
Prince Harry in Afghanistan) does the Ministry of Defense hold
documentation exempting members of the Royal Family serving in the
military from prosecution for war crimes if any were to be
committed? If so please provide copies.
5) Does the Ministry of Defense hold documentation exempting
members of the Royal Family serving in the military from being
handed the International Criminal Court? If so please provide
copies.
I look forward to a speedy response and resolution to the outstanding issues. I would like to point out that the original request was made on the 13th of May and the delays are excessive.

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

1 Attachment

Please see attached.

Dear MOD FOI Internal Reviews Team,

Could you please update me on the status of my FOI request.
It is long overdue, over a year since it was initially submitted and almost 8 months since the last update.
It has been split into a new request after clarification, the references is
Your Ref AIT 13-11-2009-172510-001

A full history of the request can be found here
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ar...

I would also like to note that the Internal Review failed to provide the 'internal memos, emails and correspondence sometimes referred to as 'meta-data' for the initial request Your Ref SP/08/04/08. Please provide those as requested.

Yours sincerely,

Chand Bakshi

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Dear Mr Bakshi

This is to acknowledge receipt of your email dated 20 August. I note
from our system that your requests for information of 13 November 2009
are still open. I apologise for the delay in replying. The IR team will
look into the reason why this has occurred with a view to ensuring you
receive a substantive reply to these requests as soon as possible.

FOI IR Team

Ministry of Defence
CIO-CI-Access Review A/Hd
Main Building 1-N-14 Whitehall, London SW1A 2HB
Tele: 0207 807 0028 (Mil 621 70028)
Fax: 0207 218 5471
email: [email address]

show quoted sections

DCDS PERS-SEC-FOI MAILBOX (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Bakshi

Please find attached a response to your Freedom of Information Request in
respect of members of the Royal Family being subject to the law.

Deputy Chief of Defence Staff Personnel and Training

DCDS PERS-SEC-FOI MAILBOX (MULTIUSER),

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Bakshi,

Please see the attached letter with reference your FOI request.

Yours sincerely

DCDS (Personnel) Secretariat

N. Roberts left an annotation ()

Like pulling teeth!!!

John Smith left an annotation ()

Actually answered in full in 2010