We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Alex Beard please sign in and let everyone know.

Army Cadets, Combined Cadet Force, and Air Cadet Organisation - Out of court settlements

We're waiting for Alex Beard to read recent responses and update the status.

Good morning,

I am writing to make an open government request for all the information to which I am entitled under the freedom of information act. In order to assist you with this request, I am outlining my query as specifically as possible.

If however this request is too wide or too unclear, I would be grateful if you could contact me as I understand that under the act, you are required to advise and assist requesters.

I would like the Ministry of Defence to provide the following information, regarding out of court settlements made as a result of sexual abuse claims in the Army Cadets, Combined Cadet Force, and Air Cadet Organisation.

I would like to know how many claims of sexual abuse against young people were recorded by the Army Cadets, Combined Cadet Force, and Air Cadet Organisation.

These figures have been released in some form in the past 10 years, with media outlets including the Guardian, writing that the MOD paid 'over £2 million.' This was archived online on Sunday, 28, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014...

If your recording practices have changed since the Guardian's FOI in 2014, please distinguish between the branches. If not please proceed.

I would like to know how many of these cases resulted in an out of court settlement.

I would like to know the amount paid in these cases. I believe to deal with my request within the cost limits of the act I should request annual figures. If this could be done in monthly sets, please advise before proceeding.

I would like these figures from between 2014-2019, up to the most recent set of data available.

I would like this information electronically.

I understand that under the act, I should be entitled to a response within 20 working days.

I would be grateful if you could confirm via email that you have received this request. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

If there is any issue with my request please don't hesitate to contact me on 07922247150.

Kind regards,
Alex

Good afternoon,
Could I please confirm that you've received my request?

CIO-FOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that your request was received on 8 October, logged under reference FOI2019/11469 and has a statutory 20 working day deadline of 5 November

Regards

Information Rights Team
Ministry of Defence

show quoted sections

Good evening,

I haven't received a response by the deadline of the 5th.
Could you provide me an update .
Kind regards,
Alex

Dear Ministry of Defence,

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 'Army Cadets, Combined Cadet Force, and Air Cadet Organisation - Out of court settlements'. This is due to a missed deadline.

Yours faithfully,

Alex Beard

SPO DJEP-ClaimsGeneral (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Alex,

I am currently dealing with your FOI request and I would like to apologise for not being able to meet the deadline. This is due to the complexity of the request and gathering the information required in order to be able to respond.

I should be able to provide you with a response by end of 29 November 2019.

Regards,

DJEP CLCP | 3rd Floor Zone I, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB

show quoted sections

Good morning,
I refer to section
"4.7 of the FOIA: Where public authorities decide a public interest test extension is required they should write to the applicant to inform them that this is the case, stating which exemption(s) it is rely on, and why,
and ideally provide the applicant with a new deadline for when they should receive their response.
If the deadline has to be further extended they should write again to the applicant."

While I appreciate you've provided me a new deadline could you please let me know on which section of the act you have based the delay on.

Kind regards,
Alex
07922247150

Apologies, along with the above I meant to reference an ICO case. (https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...)

The ruling on case FS50805864 is relevant here, it went against Birmingham City Council on 9 October 2019, after council claimed the material that was requested from them was complex and a delay occurred.

In particular I would draw your attention to the following sections:
..."She was therefore sceptical when the Council did respond to her
investigation letter, to receive only one withheld document comprising 2
sides of A4 – the ‘Information briefing’ referred to in its original
response to the complainant on 4 June 2018.

The Commissioner had already noted communications from the Council to the complainant
concerning the complexity of the request and associated information.
The complainant also supplied to the Commissioner documents he
already had access to, which he considered fell within the scope of the
request and should be held by the Council. This information had come
from previous FOI requests to the Council and DfE, as well as directly
from Council Officers themselves.

16. This raised significant concerns regarding whether the Council had
thoroughly searched for and disclosed to the Commissioner all
information it held falling within the scope of the request. She therefore
wrote back to the Council, drawing its attention to the length of time
taken to respond to the request, the review, and her own investigation
letter. She also made specific reference to other named documents that
she believed the Council held. She asked a series of detailed search
questions, including: the search terms used; the manual and electronic
sources searched; and whether any information was deleted/destroyed
and when. Whilst the meeting was held several years ago, given the
very high profile nature of the matter and widespread national coverage,
the Commissioner would expect key records and documents to be
preserved.

17. The Council responded to the Commissioner’s concerns and search
questions, supplying a range of information relating to the Trojan Horse
letter and subsequent actions / investigations. The Council provided
these in two appendices. It considered Appendix 1, with the exception
of the ‘Information brief’ to fall outside the scope of the request. Having
reviewed all the documents in this appendix the Commissioner concurs
with this assessment. For Appendix 2 (which also included the
‘Information brief’, the Council stated that the information had been
collated following searches undertaken in July 2019. It considered that
two of the documents could be supplied to the complainant but the rest
withheld under section 30(2)(a)(iii) and 30(2)(b) of the FOIA.
18. Having reviewed the withheld documents in Appendix 2, the
Commissioner is satisfied that these can be considered information
obtained or recorded in connection with the Trojan Horse investigation.
One of these is the ‘Information briefing’ already disclosed to the

Reference: FS50805864
6 Commissioner, and two other documents that the Council has named
‘Briefing note for the Leader of the Council, subject: Anonymous Letter
re. schools’ and ‘Email headed ‘Contact with Secretary of State Michael
Gove on Friday 17.2.14’.
19. The Commissioner therefore finds that the Council breached section 1 of
the FOIA by failing to a) identify all the information it held falling within
the scope of the request and b) disclose the information to the
complainant (see below for the Commissioner’s finding on application of
section 30 to the withheld information).

Alongside considering the above I refer you to 4.7 of the FOIA: Where public authorities decide a public interest test extension is required they should write to the applicant to inform them that this is the case, stating which exemption(s) it is rely on, and why,
and ideally provide the applicant with a new deadline for when they should receive their response.
If the deadline has to be further extended they should write again to the applicant."

While I appreciate you've provided me a new deadline could you also please let me know on which section of the act you have based the delay on, along with considering the ICO ruling above.

Kind regards,
Alex
07922247150

Good morning, Could I please be provided a response to my previous email in regards to the delay.

Dear Ministry of Defence,

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 'Army Cadets, Combined Cadet Force, and Air Cadet Organisation - Out of court settlements'.

Please see my previous emails:
Apologies, along with the above I meant to reference an ICO case. (https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...)

The ruling on case FS50805864 is relevant here, it went against Birmingham City Council on 9 October 2019, after council claimed the material that was requested from them was complex and a delay occurred.

In particular I would draw your attention to the following sections:
..."She was therefore sceptical when the Council did respond to her
investigation letter, to receive only one withheld document comprising 2
sides of A4 – the ‘Information briefing’ referred to in its original
response to the complainant on 4 June 2018.

The Commissioner had already noted communications from the Council to the complainant
concerning the complexity of the request and associated information.
The complainant also supplied to the Commissioner documents he
already had access to, which he considered fell within the scope of the
request and should be held by the Council. This information had come
from previous FOI requests to the Council and DfE, as well as directly
from Council Officers themselves.

16. This raised significant concerns regarding whether the Council had
thoroughly searched for and disclosed to the Commissioner all
information it held falling within the scope of the request. She therefore
wrote back to the Council, drawing its attention to the length of time
taken to respond to the request, the review, and her own investigation
letter. She also made specific reference to other named documents that
she believed the Council held. She asked a series of detailed search
questions, including: the search terms used; the manual and electronic
sources searched; and whether any information was deleted/destroyed
and when. Whilst the meeting was held several years ago, given the
very high profile nature of the matter and widespread national coverage,
the Commissioner would expect key records and documents to be
preserved.

17. The Council responded to the Commissioner’s concerns and search
questions, supplying a range of information relating to the Trojan Horse
letter and subsequent actions / investigations. The Council provided
these in two appendices. It considered Appendix 1, with the exception
of the ‘Information brief’ to fall outside the scope of the request. Having
reviewed all the documents in this appendix the Commissioner concurs
with this assessment. For Appendix 2 (which also included the
‘Information brief’, the Council stated that the information had been
collated following searches undertaken in July 2019. It considered that
two of the documents could be supplied to the complainant but the rest
withheld under section 30(2)(a)(iii) and 30(2)(b) of the FOIA.
18. Having reviewed the withheld documents in Appendix 2, the
Commissioner is satisfied that these can be considered information
obtained or recorded in connection with the Trojan Horse investigation.
One of these is the ‘Information briefing’ already disclosed to the

Reference: FS50805864
6 Commissioner, and two other documents that the Council has named
‘Briefing note for the Leader of the Council, subject: Anonymous Letter
re. schools’ and ‘Email headed ‘Contact with Secretary of State Michael
Gove on Friday 17.2.14’.
19. The Commissioner therefore finds that the Council breached section 1 of
the FOIA by failing to a) identify all the information it held falling within
the scope of the request and b) disclose the information to the
complainant (see below for the Commissioner’s finding on application of
section 30 to the withheld information).

Alongside considering the above I refer you to 4.7 of the FOIA: Where public authorities decide a public interest test extension is required they should write to the applicant to inform them that this is the case, stating which exemption(s) it is rely on, and why,
and ideally provide the applicant with a new deadline for when they should receive their response.
If the deadline has to be further extended they should write again to the applicant."

While I appreciate you've provided me a new deadline could you also please let me know on which section of the act you have based the delay on, along with considering the ICO ruling above.

Kind regards,
Alex
07922247150

Yours faithfully,

Alex Beard

Good evening,

I again am requesting an internal review.
This request was significantly delayed, it was originally submitted in early October, only then to be given an estimated release date of November 29.
Following on from this I have had poor communication from the team handling it.

I will also submit a request for this to be reviewed by the ICO this evening.
Kind regards,
Alex

SPO DJEP-ClaimsGeneral (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Alex,

This is to acknowledge the receipt of your email below.

An internal review of the handling of your request is currently taking place. A response will be sent in due course and that I am are working hard to obtain the information in fulfilment of your request.

Regards,

DJEP CLCP | 3rd Floor Zone I, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB

show quoted sections

Good morning,
Thank you for providing me an update and for your continued help with my request.
Alex

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Good morning Mr Beard,

 

Please find attached a response to your recent request for internal
review.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

 

SPO DJEP-ClaimsGeneral (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Alex,

Attached is the response to your FOI request.

Regards,

DJEP CLCP | 3rd Floor Zone I, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2HB

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Alex Beard please sign in and let everyone know.