BENT (LIAR) Winton Keenen [Northumbria Police Top Cop) ... Team Winton ... smearing victim of attempted murder (Again) by their lies, very damaging, totally false ...

Dear Northumbria Police,

BENT (LIAR) Winton Keenen [Northumbria Police Top Cop) and Team Winton (other corrupt cops) are smearing victim of attempted murder (Again) by their lies, very damaging, totally false & defamatory smears and slurs against Martin McGartland to Information Commissioner (ICO). Which the ICO have not only repeated BUT even published within their Decision Notice [Reference: FS50664628 ] - Decision Notice page link Here: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

[The Full Text of the Decision Notice is included below]

Under the FOIA I would link Northumbria Police to disclose all documents / correspondence between them and ICO relating to this case (Case Reference: FS50664628) including - but not limited to - all recorded information they hold (in all formats) that include their lies, the very damaging, totally false & defamatory smears and slurs against Martin McGartland that are included within the ICO decision Notice (text copied & pasted below). Some of which include;

' ... submitting repeated and
overlapping requests and their often defamatory and accusatory tone...'

'...public comments made by and about individual Northumbria Police
officers. Many of the requests are phrased in a way which implies
misconduct and wrongdoing by Northumbria Police.'

'From this central dispute, the complainant has expressed wider concerns
about Northumbria Police. He persistently accuses Northumbria Police of
corruption, in trying to conceal the truth about the way it has dealt with
him over the years, and he makes these accusations frequently and
publicly. An internet search of his surname together with “Northumbria
Police” brings up multiple blogs, information requests and postings
alleging cover ups, incompetence, smear campaigns and corruption by
Northumbria Police. '

'From this central dispute, the complainant has expressed wider concerns
about Northumbria Police. He persistently accuses Northumbria Police of
corruption, in trying to conceal the truth about the way it has dealt with
him over the years, and he makes these accusations frequently and
publicly. An internet search of his surname together with “Northumbria
Police” brings up multiple blogs, information requests and postings
alleging cover ups, incompetence, smear campaigns and corruption by
Northumbria Police. '

'18. It is Northumbria Police’s position that the complainant’s dissatisfaction
with the way it handled the attempted murder investigation has
escalated into voluminous and obsessive correspondence which
dominates its FOIA resources with requests and these, when answered,
frequently generate further requests. It says that the volume of the
complainant’s FOIA requests, his habit of submitting repeated and
overlapping requests and their often defamatory and accusatory tone
have transcended what would be proportionate in the circumstances,
and have become manifestly unreasonable and burdensome in terms of
the resources that need to be allocated to deal with them.'

'The complainant continued to submit FOIA requests to Northumbria
Police after the above notice was issued, albeit his requests for
information about the attempted murder investigation subsided. More
recently, Northumbria Police said his requests had covered subjects
including complaints, discipline policies, procedures, statistics and
incidents involving similar circumstances (to the complainant’s case) as
well as other matters. Nevertheless, it considered that these requests
had been made as a direct result of the complainant’s discontent with
the handling of the attempted murder case and that he was using the
FOIA, and particularly the facility provided by WhatDoTheyKnow, to
publicly air his grievances and to harass, defame and discredit
Northumbria Police. ' .....

24. Northumbria Police also cited what it considered to be the complainant’s
habit of personally targeting senior police officers involved in
investigations relating to him. Referring to a previous instance involving
another senior officer, it said:
“That named Officer was the target of a campaign from this requestor
and was the subject of eight separate FOI from those classed as
working in concert regarding [the complainant’s] issues. [The
complainant] used these requests along with other websites to further
his campaign against this other named Officer. It is now clear that
[the complainant] is launching a similar campaign against Mr Keenen
as he has now submitted a number of requests specifically about Mr
Keenen.

'It is clear that [the complainant] targets Senior Officers who become
involved in his issues with Northumbria Police.”
25. On that point, the Commissioner notes that she considered a complaint
about a request for similar information about the other named officer,
by the complainant, under decision notice reference FS504356413.'

'26. In setting out its full case, Northumbria Police said:
“[The complainant] has submitted a large volume of requests and
many of these requests are overlapping and often mix accusations
and have become manifestly unreasonable and burdensome, in terms
of the resources required to deal with them.
The requests [the complainant] submits regarding Officers form a
small part of a large volume of requests submitted by him. Many of
[the complainant’s] requests mix accusations and are placed into a
public arena in an effort to further his grievances against Northumbria
Police.' ' Etc etc .....

I will rely on the entire document.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Reference: FS50664628

1
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Decision notice

Date: 11 July 2017

Public Authority: Chief Constable of Northumbria Police
Address: Northumbria Police Headquarters
Middle Engine Lane
Wallsend
Tyne & Wear
NE28 9NT

Decision (including any steps ordered)

1. The complainant has requested information about any complaints
Northumbria Police may have received about its deputy chief constable.
Northumbria Police refused to comply with the request, on the grounds
that it was vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1) of the FOIA.

2. The Commissioner’s decision is that Northumbria Police was entitled to
rely on section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request. No steps are
required.
Request and response

3. On 21 September 2016, the complainant wrote to Northumbria Police
via the public WhatDoTheyKnow website and requested information in
the following terms:
“I would like you to supply me with information on all complaints
made against Winton Keenen when he was ACC and during his period
as DCC.

I would like to also know;

1. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen while he
was Assistant Chief Constable.

2. How many complaints were made against DCC Keenen since he has
been Acting DCC and while DCC.
I would like the data broken into date order and I am requiring it to
include all complaints, even those that were not recorded.

3. Details of outcome of each complaint and any action taken against
Winton Keenen. I do not wish for you to disclose any personal data relating to Winton
Keenen, the information I am requesting relates to his position in a
public office while acting as a Chief officer.”

4. Northumbria Police responded on 18 October 2016. It would neither
confirm nor deny whether it held the requested information, citing the
exemption at section 40(5) (Personal information) of the FOIA.

5. Following an internal review, Northumbria Police wrote to the
complainant on 10 January 2017. It upheld its decision to apply section
40(5).

Scope of the case

6. The complainant contacted the Commissioner on 13 January 2017 to
complain about the way his request for information had been handled.
He wished to challenge the application of section 40(5) to refuse the
request.

7. During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, Northumbria
Police revised its position with regard to the request. It withdrew its
reliance on section 40(5) and instead cited section 14(1) (Vexatious
request) as its reason for refusing to comply with the request.

8. Following the combined cases of the Home Office v Information
Commissioner (GIA/2098/2010) and DEFRA v Information Commissioner
(GIA/1694/2010) in the Upper Tribunal, a public authority is able to
claim a new grounds for refusing a request, either before the
Commissioner or the First-tier Tribunal, and both must consider any
such new claims.

9. The Commissioner has therefore considered Northumbria Police’s
application of section 14(1) to refuse to comply with the request.

Reasons for decision

Section 14(1) – vexatious requests

10. Section 14(1) of the FOIA states that section 1(1) does not oblige a
public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is
vexatious. The section is not subject to a public interest test.

11. The term “vexatious” is not defined in the FOIA. The Upper Tribunal
(Information Rights) considered in some detail the issue of vexatious
requests in the case of the Information Commissioner v Devon CC &
Dransfield1.

The Tribunal commented that “vexatious” could be defined
as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal
procedure”. The Tribunal’s definition clearly establishes that the
concepts of proportionality and justification are relevant to any
consideration of whether a request is vexatious.

12. In the Dransfield case, the Upper Tribunal also found it instructive to
assess the question of whether a request is truly vexatious by
considering four broad issues: (1) the burden imposed by the request
(on the public authority and its staff); (2) the motive of the requester;
(3) the value or serious purpose of the request and (4) harassment or
distress of and to staff.

13. The Upper Tribunal did, however, also caution that these considerations
were not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it stressed the:
“…importance of adopting a holistic and broad approach to the
determination of whether a request is vexatious or not, emphasising
the attributes of manifest unreasonableness, irresponsibility and,
especially where there is a previous course of dealings, the lack of
proportionality that typically characterise vexatious requests”
(paragraph 45).

14. The Commissioner has published guidance on vexatious requests2 . That guidance includes a number of indicators that may apply in the case of a
vexatious request.

1 GIA/3037/2011
2 https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio...

15. As discussed in the Commissioner’s guidance, the relevant consideration
is whether the request itself is vexatious, rather than the individual
submitting it. However, a public authority may also consider the context
of the request and the history of its relationship with the requester when
this is relevant.

16. In relation to the background and history to the request, the
Commissioner understands that the complainant has been in contact
with Northumbria Police for many years regarding his dissatisfaction
with its investigation into an attempt on his life in 1999 (for which
nobody has been charged; while Northumbria Police initially categorised
the attempt as gangland related, it later conceded this was not the case,
and apologised to the complainant. It says that the case remains open).

17. From this central dispute, the complainant has expressed wider concerns
about Northumbria Police. He persistently accuses Northumbria Police of
corruption, in trying to conceal the truth about the way it has dealt with
him over the years, and he makes these accusations frequently and
publicly. An internet search of his surname together with “Northumbria
Police” brings up multiple blogs, information requests and postings
alleging cover ups, incompetence, smear campaigns and corruption by
Northumbria Police.

18. It is Northumbria Police’s position that the complainant’s dissatisfaction
with the way it handled the attempted murder investigation has
escalated into voluminous and obsessive correspondence which
dominates its FOIA resources with requests and these, when answered,
frequently generate further requests. It says that the volume of the
complainant’s FOIA requests, his habit of submitting repeated and
overlapping requests and their often defamatory and accusatory tone
have transcended what would be proportionate in the circumstances,
and have become manifestly unreasonable and burdensome in terms of
the resources that need to be allocated to deal with them.

19. At the time of this decision notice (and since 2010), of a total of 565
FOIA requests received by Northumbria Police via the online
WhatDoTheyKnow website, 83 had been submitted by the complainant,
eight since January 2017. He had also submitted multiple FOIA requests
to Northumbria Police prior to 2010, which were not submitted via
WhatDoTheyKnow.

20. The requests span a range of topics: information about the attempted
murder investigation (including details of evidence, tactics and also
peripheral elements such as press releases and expenses incurred);
information about Northumbria Police’s handling of the complainant’s
requests for information; and requests about the expenses, conduct and
public comments made by and about individual Northumbria Police
officers. Many of the requests are phrased in a way which implies
misconduct and wrongdoing by Northumbria Police.

21. As mentioned above, Northumbria Police also received multiple requests
for information about the attempted murder investigation prior to 2010,
which are not on WhatDoTheyKnow. On 13 November 2009 it informed
the complainant in writing that it considered these requests to be
vexatious, and that it would not henceforth be responding to similar
such requests from him.

22. The complainant continued to submit FOIA requests to Northumbria
Police after the above notice was issued, albeit his requests for
information about the attempted murder investigation subsided. More
recently, Northumbria Police said his requests had covered subjects
including complaints, discipline policies, procedures, statistics and
incidents involving similar circumstances (to the complainant’s case) as
well as other matters. Nevertheless, it considered that these requests
had been made as a direct result of the complainant’s discontent with
the handling of the attempted murder case and that he was using the
FOIA, and particularly the facility provided by WhatDoTheyKnow, to
publicly air his grievances and to harass, defame and discredit
Northumbria Police.

23. Northumbria Police considered that the request under consideration here
was part of a steady and persistent series of FOIA requests and that
answering it offered no prospect of satisfying the complainant and would
not result in the requests stopping. It acknowledged that an individual
request may not be vexatious in isolation, but when considered in the
context of a long series of overlapping requests or other correspondence
it may form part of a wider pattern of behaviour that makes it
vexatious. It considered his request, when taken in context with the
many other requests received from him, could fairly be regarded as
vexatious.

24. Northumbria Police also cited what it considered to be the complainant’s
habit of personally targeting senior police officers involved in
investigations relating to him. Referring to a previous instance involving
another senior officer, it said:
“That named Officer was the target of a campaign from this requestor
and was the subject of eight separate FOI from those classed as
working in concert regarding [the complainant’s] issues. [The
complainant] used these requests along with other websites to further
his campaign against this other named Officer. It is now clear that
[the complainant] is launching a similar campaign against Mr Keenen
as he has now submitted a number of requests specifically about Mr
Keenen.

It is clear that [the complainant] targets Senior Officers who become
involved in his issues with Northumbria Police.”
25. On that point, the Commissioner notes that she considered a complaint
about a request for similar information about the other named officer,
by the complainant, under decision notice reference FS504356413
.
26. In setting out its full case, Northumbria Police said:
“[The complainant] has submitted a large volume of requests and
many of these requests are overlapping and often mix accusations
and have become manifestly unreasonable and burdensome, in terms
of the resources required to deal with them.
The requests [the complainant] submits regarding Officers form a
small part of a large volume of requests submitted by him. Many of
[the complainant’s] requests mix accusations and are placed into a
public arena in an effort to further his grievances against Northumbria
Police.

It is clear that [the complainant] has issues with Officers that have
dealt with him and uses public facing arenas to air these grievances. A
simple internet search brings back multiple entries specifically about
Mr Keenen and in my view it is clear from the type and nature of the
data available in such searches that [the complainant] is using the
FOIA arena to further this campaign against Mr Keenan.”

27. It considered that the time and effort to process and respond to the
complainant’s requests placed a significant burden on its available
resources for dealing with FOIA requests, that the continued approaches
were unreasonable and that the public comments made by the
complainant amounted to harassment of Northumbria Police and its
staff.

The Commissioner’s position

28. The Commissioner notes the background to this case. For many years
Northumbria Police has dealt with persistent requests for information
from the complainant. Many of the requests could fairly be characterised
as being a vehicle for the complainant to publicise his dissatisfaction
with Northumbria Police (she notes, for example, that the complainant
has annotated the WhatDoTheyKnow record for this request, with a

3 https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

detailed account of his concerns about other issues, not directly related
to this request).

29. The Commissioner acknowledges the impact on Northumbria Police’s
administrative resources of dealing with the complainant’s request,
when considered alongside the voluminous nature of the other requests
regularly submitted by him. She accepts that this has caused a
significant level of disruption and irritation to it and that dealing with
them means that it runs the risk of impacting on service levels afforded
to other people who make FOIA requests.

30. Having looked at the pattern of the complainant’s requests, the
Commissioner also considers that any response given by Northumbria
Police would not be the end of the matter and would be likely to lead to
follow-up requests from the complainant. She is of the view that this
would extend the life of the complainant’s use of the FOIA to address his
grievance with Northumbria Police.

31. The Commissioner has considered whether there is any serious purpose
or value for the requested information and, if the request was complied
with, would it satisfy this purpose. She recognises that one of the
driving factors for the complainant’s discontent with Northumbria Police
is the fact that nobody has yet been charged with his attempted murder,
and that this must be a genuine and pressing concern for the
complainant. However, disclosure of the requested information would do
nothing to address that point.

32. The complainant clearly has other grievances about his treatment by
Northumbria Police, which have led him to publicly question its
competence and integrity. The disclosure of information about
complaints made against a senior officer might therefore be in the public
interest in that context. However, where individual officers’ behaviour is
called into question, there are official channels and procedures through
which this should be investigated and addressed (via the force
Professional Standards Department or referral to the Independent Police
Complaints Commission). These referrals ensure that serious or
systematic misconduct is identified and dealt with appropriately and the
Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest in scrutiny of senior
officers is, to a very large degree, served by these procedures.

33. In view of this, the Commissioner considers that the request for
information has no wider value or purpose beyond the complainant’s
public pursuit of his personal grievance against Northumbria Police.

34. She considers it clear that the complainant appears to be attempting to
pursue his grievances through the FOIA regime, by way of the public
WhatDoTheyKnow website and that by the volume and the tone of many of the requests and accompanying correspondence, he is using it in an attempt to embarrass and harass Northumbria Police.

35. The Commissioner considers that the FOIA is not an appropriate
mechanism for pursuing such concerns. If the complainant has concerns
about how Northumbria Police has dealt with the investigation into the
attempt on his life, there exist formal channels through which he may
have his grievances formally examined (outlined in paragraph 31,
above). The Commissioner considers that there is no public interest in
them being played out in public, under the FOIA regime.

36. Taking all the above into account, the Commissioner considers that the
request meets the Tribunal’s definition of “manifestly unjustified,
inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure” and that it was
vexatious within the meaning of section 14(1).

Right of appeal

37. Either party has the right to appeal against this decision notice to the
First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights). Information about the appeals
process may be obtained from:

First-tier Tribunal (Information Rights)
GRC & GRP Tribunals,
PO Box 9300,
LEICESTER,
LE1 8DJ

Tel: 0300 1234504
Fax: 0870 739 5836
Email: .................
Website: www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/general-reg...

38. If you wish to appeal against a decision notice, you can obtain
information on how to appeal along with the relevant forms from the
Information Tribunal website.

39. Any Notice of Appeal should be served on the Tribunal within 28
(calendar) days of the date on which this decision notice is sent.

Signed ………………………………………………

Samantha Bracegirdle
Senior Case Officer
Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF

Link to the Decision Notice: https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...