As of 13 April 2014 there is still a great deal of serious corruption within Northumbria Police HQ and its PSD. What has changed since Chris Thomson's days?

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your e mail dated 13 April 2014 in which you made a request
for access to certain information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police),
subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

Your request:

"I have made a number of comp0laints to Northumbria police concerning their
cover-up and criminal corruption concerning my attempted murder case. To
date, each and every complaint I made to Northumbria police has either been
whitewashed, not recorded or covered-up. A number of those were dealt with
under Chris Thomson's watch (while head of PSD). However, since Chris
Thomson has been forced out or sacked (very quietly) because of this;
http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/story/...
Chris Thomson, at the same time, was also the SIO in my attempted murder
case and was investigating himself and his friends (including Sue 'Sin'
Sim). This was after I complained that Chris Thomson, Sue Sim and others
had been (continue to be) involved in very serious corruption and a
cover-up while dealing with my attempted murder case. Chris Thomson, as
head of PSD, fixed it for himself and his friends so that he, they were
found (by him) to have done nothing wrong. How corrupt is that?

Since Chris Thomson has been sacked as head of PSD I have had reason to
make further serious complaints to PSD. Those latest complaints have never
been recorded nor have they been investigated. I have found that nothing
much has changed within the NP, PSD. There is still a great amount of very
serious corruption to this very day (13 April 2014).

Under FOIA 2000, due to above, I am requesting following information;
1. Have any of the complaints made by me, Martin McGartland, been
Scrutinized by the seven member complaint scrutiny panel as put of their
investigations into how Northumbria Police deals with complaints?

2. Regards 1 above, who makes the decisions on what cases, complaints
the panel look at? (please include name, rank ..)

3, What are the names of the seven Members Complaint Scrutiny Panel and
what is their background?

4, Can those who are unhappy with the way in which NP have dealt with
their complaints contact the panel directly so that evidence of serious
criminal corruption by NP, above named, can be 'independently' investigated
by the panel?

5, Have NP refereed any complaints to the panel where there has been
allegations of corruption against NP, its officers. If not, why not?

6, I want to place on the record that I give my full consent to have any
complaints I have made against NP to be pasted to the seven members
complaint scrutiny Panel to be investigated. Given above will NP now refer
my complaint/s to them. If not, please explain why not? "

In response:

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

The Disclosure Section has received a large number of requests from you
previously and 9 since February 2014 to date. Many of your requests
concern operations involving the specific case of your shooting and other
requests have covered subjects including complaints, discipline policies,
procedures, statistics and incidents involving similar circumstances. Some
of which have been correctly been classed as vexatious. It is relevant to
take into account the volume and frequency of submissions when considering
whether requests can fairly be regarded as obsessive in nature. Most of
the responses supplied by this department have subsequently been followed
up by further requests for information, requests for clarification and
requests for internal reviews.

Section 14 (1)- Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is deemed
as Vexatious.

An authority is not obliged to deal with requests that are manifestly
unreasonable or obsessive. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
guidance on vexatious requests states “there is a risk that some
individuals and some organisations may seek to abuse these new rights with
requests which are manifestly unreasonable". Such cases may well arise in
connection with a grievance or complaint which an individual is pursuing
against an authority. While giving maximum support to individuals
genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the ICO’s general approach
will be sympathetic towards authorities where a request, which may be the
latest in a series of requests, would impose a significant burden and can
otherwise be characterised as obsessive or manifestly unreasonable". It is
clear that a Freedom of Information request is not the appropriate arena
within which to air a grievance or progress a campaign against Northumbria
Police.

Further to this, ICO guidance states “A request may not be vexatious in
isolation, but when considered in context (for example if it is the latest
in a long series of overlapping requests or other correspondence) it may
form part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious”.
Clearly your requests when taken in context with others received on these
subjects form part of an ongoing campaign that can be fairly called
vexatious in nature. Your requests regularly also mixes false and
groundless accusations with requests for information.

These requests due to their volume cause a significant burden and divert
staff away from their core functions. It could also be argued that the
volume of requests, requests for clarification and internal review requests
cause harassment to Northumbria Police (whether intended or not).

Via the What Do They Know web-site, it is apparent that several requests
have been made to different public bodies on this subject including The
Department of Justice (Northern Ireland), Northumbria Police Authority, a
number of other Police Forces and the Crown Prosecution Service. These
requests would all appear to be from people acting in concert in an attempt
to raise a grievance against Northumbria Police.

Your requests are clearly part of a campaign with other parties who have
also submitted substantially similar requests to various public bodies in
the past.

It is in the public domain that the investigation into the shooting remains
live. Any requests received regarding this ongoing investigation can
fairly be seen as designed to disrupt the normal business process (the
ongoing investigation). Any release of information which is likely to be
to the detriment of the legal process must be resisted at this time.

Whilst not at first apparent, when considered in context, it is clear that
your subsequent requests stem from the initial ongoing issue you have with
Northumbria Police.

I am therefore satisfied that your request is of a vexatious nature and I
therefore must advise you that further requests made under the Act, for
information relating to yourself, informant information, police complaints
and discipline policies, procedures and statistics, incidents of the type
that you, Martin McGartland were involved in and related matters will not
be acknowledged or responded to.

You should note that following this correspondence, we are not obliged to,
nor do we intend to, take any further steps in relation to this matter or
any further requests that you submit that are deemed to fall into the remit
of vexatious.
You should note that it is the subject of the request that can be declared
vexatious rather than the requestor and it is therefore relevant to take
into account all other requests received and subsequent responses issued on
these matters.

You may be interested to know that Northumbria Police routinely publish
information via the Disclosure Log. The aim of the Disclosure Log is to
promote openness and transparency by voluntarily placing information into
the public arena.

The Disclosure Log contains copies of some of the information that has been
disclosed by Northumbria Police in response to requests made under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Whilst it is not possible to publish all responses we will endeavour to
publish those where we feel that the information disclosed is in the public
interest.

The Disclosure Log will be updated once responses have been sent to the
requester.

I have provided the relevant link below.

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...

The information we have supplied to you is likely to contain intellectual
property rights of Northumbria Police. Your use of the information must be
strictly in accordance with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as
amended) or such other applicable legislation. In particular, you must not
re-use this information for any commercial purpose.

How to complain

If you are unhappy with our decision or do not consider that we have
handled your request properly and we are unable to resolve this issue
informally, you are entitled to make a formal complaint to us under our
complaints procedure which is attached.

(See attached file: FOI Complaint Rights.doc)

If you are still unhappy after we have investigated your complaint and
reported to you the outcome, you may complain directly to the Information
Commissioner’s Office and request that they investigate to ascertain
whether we have dealt with your request in accordance with the Act.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor
Direct Dial: 0191 2956941

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

We acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of the
response you received in relation to the above mentioned Freedom Of
Information request.

We aim to provide a response to you within 20 working days of this
acknowledgement.
Yours sincerely

Peter Storey
Disclosure Section

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is
confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation
or individual to whom it is addressed.  The message may contain
information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege.  No
mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such
privilege.  This message has been sent over public networks and the sender
cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information
contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions
of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection
Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically
stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a
result of software viruses.  It is your responsibility to carry out such
virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website -
[1]http://www.northumbria.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your correspondence dated 5 May 2014 in which you
requested a review of the response to your request for access to certain
information which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right
of access to information held by a Public Authority (including the
Police) subject to certain limitations and exemptions

You asked:

Dear Northumbria Police,

I have made a number of comp0laints to Northumbria police concerning
their cover-up and criminal corruption concerning my attempted murder
case. To date, each and every complaint I made to Northumbria police has
either been whitewashed, not recorded or covered-up. A number of those
were dealt with under Chris Thomson's watch (while head of PSD).
However, since Chris Thomson has been forced out or sacked (very
quietly) because of this;
http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/story/...
Chris Thomson, at the same time, was also the SIO in my attempted
murder case and was investigating himself and his friends (including Sue
'Sin' Sim). This was after I complained that Chris Thomson, Sue Sim and
others had been (continue to be) involved in very serious corruption and
a cover-up while dealing with my attempted murder case. Chris Thomson,
as head of PSD, fixed it for himself and his friends so that he, they
were found (by him) to have done nothing wrong. How corrupt is that?

Since Chris Thomson has been sacked as head of PSD I have had reason to
make further serious complaints to PSD. Those latest complaints have
never been recorded nor have they been investigated. I have found that
nothing much has changed within the NP, PSD. There is still a great
amount of very serious corruption to this very day (13 April 2014).

Under FOIA 2000, due to above, I am requesting following information;

1. Have any of the complaints made by me, Martin McGartland, been
Scrutinized by the seven member complaint scrutiny panel as put of their
investigations into how Northumbria Police deals with complaints?

2. Regards 1 above, who makes the decisions on what cases, complaints
the panel look at? (please include name, rank ..)

3, What are the names of the seven Members Complaint Scrutiny Panel
and what is their background?

4, Can those who are unhappy with the way in which NP have dealt with
their complaints contact the panel directly so that evidence of serious
criminal corruption by NP, above named, can be 'independently'
investigated by the panel?

5, Have NP refereed any complaints to the panel where there has been
allegations of corruption against NP, its officers. If not, why not?

6, I want to place on the record that I give my full consent to have
any complaints I have made against NP to be pasted to the seven members
complaint scrutiny Panel to be investigated. Given above will NP now
refer my complaint/s to them. If not, please explain why not?

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

In response:

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

The Disclosure Section has received a large number of requests from you
previously. Many of your requests concern operations involving the
specific case of your shooting and other requests have covered subjects
including complaints, discipline policies, procedures, statistics and
incidents involving similar circumstances. Some of which have been
correctly been classed as vexatious. It is relevant to take into
account the volume and frequency of submissions when considering whether
requests can fairly be regarded as obsessive in nature. Most of the
responses supplied by this department have subsequently been followed up
by further requests for information, requests for clarification and
requests for internal reviews.

Section 14 (1)- Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
deemed as vexatious.

An authority is not obliged to deal with requests that are manifestly
unreasonable or obsessive. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO)
guidance on vexatious requests states “there is a risk that some
individuals and some organisations may seek to abuse these new rights
with requests which are manifestly unreasonable". Such cases may well
arise in connection with a grievance or complaint which an individual is
pursuing against an authority. While giving maximum support to
individuals genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the ICO’s
general approach will be sympathetic towards authorities where a
request, which may be the latest in a series of requests, would impose a
significant burden and can otherwise be characterised as obsessive or
manifestly unreasonable". It is clear that a Freedom of Information
request is not the appropriate arena within which to air a grievance or
progress a campaign against Northumbria Police.

Further to this, ICO guidance states “A request may not be vexatious in
isolation, but when considered in context (for example if it is the
latest in a long series of overlapping requests or other correspondence)
it may form part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it
vexatious”. Clearly your requests when taken in context with others
received on these subjects form part of an ongoing campaign that can be
fairly called vexatious in nature. Your requests regularly also mixes
false and groundless accusations with requests for information.

These requests due to their volume cause a significant burden and divert
staff away from their core functions. It could also be argued that the
volume of requests, requests for clarification and internal review
requests cause harassment to Northumbria Police (whether intended or
not).

Via the What Do They Know web-site, it is apparent that several requests
have been made to different public bodies on this subject including The
Department of Justice (Northern Ireland), Northumbria Police Authority,
a number of other Police Forces and the Crown Prosecution Service.
These requests would all appear to be from people acting in concert in
an attempt to raise a grievance against Northumbria Police.

Your requests are clearly part of a campaign with other parties who have
also submitted substantially similar requests to various public bodies
in the past.

It is in the public domain that the investigation into the shooting
remains live. Any requests received regarding this ongoing
investigation can fairly be seen as designed to disrupt the normal
business process (the ongoing investigation). Any release of
information which is likely to be to the detriment of the legal process
must be resisted at this time.

Whilst not at first apparent, when considered in context, it is clear
that your subsequent requests stem from the initial ongoing issue you
have with Northumbria Police.

I am therefore satisfied that your request is of a vexatious nature and
I therefore must advise you that further requests made under the Act,
for information relating to yourself, informant information, police
complaints and discipline policies, procedures and statistics, incidents
of the type that you, Martin McGartland were involved in and related
matters will not be acknowledged or responded to.

You should note that following this correspondence, we are not obliged
to, nor do we intend to, take any further steps in relation to this
matter or any further requests that you submit that are deemed to fall
into the remit of vexatious.

You should note that it is the subject of the request that can be
declared vexatious rather than the requestor and it is therefore
relevant to take into account all other requests received and subsequent
responses issued on these matters.

Your request for Internal review stated:

I note what you have say in your reply, however, if you refuse or fail
to deal with this request for an Internal Review I can confirm that I
will be making a complaint to the ICO. I will also be looking at what
other action I can take in this matter.

I want to place on the record that I stand by each, every statement that
I have made concerning Sue Sim, Northumbria police, members of NP legal
department and its SB being behind very serious criminal corruption and
cover-up while dealing with me, my attempted murder case. Any of those
I have named, at any time, can take legal action against me and we can
sort it out in an independent court of law. I will continue to expose
their crimes, their deeds, their corruption and their lies. It is the
truth.

This Internal review is on the grounds that NP are continuing to rely on
a flawed and unlawful notice that they issued over 4 and a half years
ago. That Notice, part of the ongoing Sue Sim, Chris Thomson, SB, Legal
department .. criminal corruption, cover-up) was nothing other than a
illegal gagging order that has been abused, used to stop me, victim of
an attempted murder, from asking for information about my 1999 attempted
murder, about the corruption, cover-up and failures by above named. The
illegal gagging
order, dated 13th of November 2009, which includes following;

"I advise that any requests under the Act that are received from you
after 4:00pm on Friday 13th November 2009 which are related to those
previously received from you will not be considered under the
legislation. I confirm that any further requests made under the Act,
received after the date given, for information relating to the incident
in which you were
shot on the 17th June 2009 and any subsequent information relating to
investigations arising from the incident, associated legal proceeding,
media related matters and any complaints made by
yourself relating to the incident and subsequent investigation will be
categorised as Vexatious and will not be administered in any capacity.
You should note that following this correspondence, we
are not obliged to, nor do we intend to, take any further steps in
relation to this matter or any further requests that you submit that are
deemed to fall into the remit of vexatious." (Request Ref:
1750/09)

NP are abusing the FOIA 2000 and they are breaking the law. They are
using above as a blanket and are refusing, failing to deal correctly
with every single request I have made. To date, NP, have supplied me
with little or no information that I have requested concerning my
attempted murder case. What they have done is gag me to stop me from
asking embarrassing questions that, as the victim, I have a right to
do.

The 2009 flawed, unlawful notice can not continue to be used by Sue Sim,
Northumbria police to conceal their own embarrassment, criminal
corruption and cover-up in my attempted murder. Here is the latest
newspaper report of such corruption, cover-up by NP in my attempted
murder case;
http://www.nuzhound.com/articles/breen/a...
(text below). It has been Lies, Lies and more Lies since 17th June
1999.

One other point, I can not see any evidence to back up your wild claims
that others have made requests concerning my attempted murder case and
or concerning me in resent weeks, months or even longer.

Furthermore, NP have not dealt with this request correctly nor within
the law. The 2009 unlawful, flawed notice (gagging order) can not be
relied upon 4 and a half years after it was first cooked up by Sue Sim,
Chris Thomson, SB and corrupt Legal department. I must now be reviewed
and withdraw.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

In response:

I have taken this opportunity to revisit the vexatious notice issued to you
in November 2009. I have attached a copy of that notice below.

"Section 14 - Freedom of Information Act 2000

Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act does not oblige a public
authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
deemed as Vexatious.

Where a public authority has previously complied with a request for
information which was made by any person, it is not obliged to comply
with a subsequent identical or substantially similar request from that
person.

I advise that any requests under the Act that are received from you
after 4.00pm on Friday 13th November 2009 which are related to those
previously received from you will not be considered under the
legislation. I confirm that any further requests made under the Act,
received after the date given, for information relating to the incident
in which you were shot on the 17th June 1999 and any subsequent
information relating to investigation arising from the incident,
associated legal proceedings, media related matters and any complaints
made by yourself related to the incident and subsequent investigation
will be categorised as Vexatious and will not be administered in any
capacity.

You should note that following this correspondence, we are not obliged
to, nor do we intend to, take any further steps in relation to this
matter or any further requests that you may submit that are deemed to
fall into the remit of vexatious."

Whilst the original notice supplied to you may remain relevant to requests
submitted, it was not relied upon in this case and a new response was
supplied to you based on the information available at the time of this
request.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is clear in that it is the request
which must be vexatious rather than the requester:-

14(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with
a request for information if the request is vexatious.
14(2) Where a public authority has previously complied with a
request for information which was made by any person, it is not
obliged to comply with a subsequent identical or substantially
similar request from the person unless a reasonable interval has
elapsed between compliance with the previous request and the making
of the current request.

There is no definition within the Act of ‘vexatious’ however, the Court in
a recent Upper Tribunal decision (Information Commissioner v Devon County
Council and Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440) attempted to give some definition
to the term.

In the introduction to the judgement, it is established that the purpose of
section 14 “must be to protect the resources (in the broadest sense of that
word) of the public authority from being squandered on disproportionate use
of FOIA……To that extent section 14 of FOIA operates as a sort of
legislative “get out of jail free card” for public authorities. Its effect
is to relieve the public authority of dealing with the request in issued,
except to the limited extent of issuing a refusal notice as required by
section 17. In short, it allows the public authority to say in terms
“enough is enough – the nature of this request is vexatious so that section
1 does not apply”.”

As to the meaning of the term vexatious, the Upper Tribunal (UT) devoted
some 22 paragraphs of the 85 paragraph judgement to that term and whilst
there will never be a definitive answer to whether a request is vexatious
(so much being case dependent) it does give robust guidance, in my view, on
how the term should be approached.

Firstly, the UT agrees with the conclusion reached by the First Tier
Tribunal (FTT) in Lee v Information Commissioner GIA/1871/2011 that
vexatious connotes “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use
of a formal procedure””. The UT goes on to state that “It may be helpful
to consider the question of whether a request is truly vexatious by
considering four broad issues or themes – (1) the burden (on the public
authority and its staff); (2) the motive (of the requester); (3) the value
or the serious purpose (of the request) and (4) any harassment or distress
(of and to staff).”

Dealing with each of these four questions in turn:-

Burden

The context and history of the request is to be considered in terms of the
previous course of dealings between the requester and the public authority.
In particular the number, breadth, pattern and duration of previous
requests.

You have submitted over 40 requests since 1st January 2012. The section 14
provision, as outlined, has the intention to reduce the burden of
compliance with requests that are unreasonable or aimed to cause annoyance,
harassment or disruption and to prevent abuse of the right to know.

In this case, on average, we have received more than one per month over the
last two and a half years. The requests are erratic and broad in scope,
many individual questions being asked within one request.

A long history of requests over several years may make what would otherwise
be a reasonable request wholly unreasonable. In your case, the number of
requests received, followed by automatic requests for internal review
without discretion, leads to increased, unreasonable burden upon the Chief
Constable.

Motive

Although I acknowledge that the Act is largely motive and applicant blind,
the UT acknowledged that the motive of the requester could be a factor in
assessing whether the request is vexatious.

The UT talks about instances where an individual may have had an initial
valid request but has made so many subsequent requests and complaints as to
become disproportionate to the original inquiry. The UT defines this as
“vexatiousness by drift”. By way of example, the UT refers to the case of
Wise v Information Commissioner (GIA/1871/2011). In that case Mr Wise was
unhappy about the way the police handled a particular matter, he then made
a series of successive FOIA requests to different public authorities about
a wide range of different matters which became wholly disproportionate to
his original aim. This was described as vexatiousness by drift. I take
particular account here of the fact that Mr Wise made a number of
approaches to “different” public authorities i.e. suggesting that requests
to other authorities would fall to be considered in reaching a vexatious
determination. In my view, the Chief Constable is entitled to take into
account the history of requests, complaints and conduct experienced by
other agencies is reaching a determination and I have referred to the
publicly available FOI requests made by you to a great many other agencies.

Furthermore, you have specifically stated that you would recommence your
FOI campaign during a conversation with a member of staff in this office
and this must be taken into account in determining whether this request is
vexatious as, to some extent, you yourself have indicated that that is your
intention.

Value or Serious Purpose

Whilst there may be value in some of the requests submitted, the question
is whether the request has value or serious purpose in terms of the
objective public interest in the information sought. It is clear from some
of the requests submitted that you are fishing for information without a
serious purpose and this is not an appropriate use of FOI in my view.

Causing harassment of, or distress to, staff

This can be evidenced by obsessive conduct, intemperate language, wide
ranging and unsubstantiated allegations, offensive conduct amongst other
things.

There is a significant history of wide ranging and unsubstantiated
allegations against a number of Northumbria Police (and ex NP) officers.
The tone of correspondence has been unreasonable and I have not seen any
evidence of wrongdoing other your own assertion. Earlier correspondence
has demonstrated a pattern of aggressive and accusatory behaviour comments
and I believe there is a real likelihood that this pattern will be
repeated.

I have taken into account also, the requests made to Professional Standards
Department and the IPCC which have not been upheld and I have concluded
that your requests are obsessive, intended to harass the organisation and
members thereof and are designed to cause disruption and annoyance and are
not made in good faith. I have considered too, in reviewing this matter
your online campaign against individual officers which could amount to
defamatory libel and the inflammatory language you have used in
correspondence with the organisation.

In conclusion, it is the decision of this review that the exemption was
fully applicable and the response supplied was therefore suitable.

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review then it remains
open to you to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at the
following address:

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

Yours sincerely

Louise Silverton
Senior Solicitor
Legal Department
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk