Martin McGartland

21 January 2018

Dear Northumbria Police,

The following story was published in the Sunday Times newspaper today, ( link / page re story here; https://www.facebook.com/Burglary-arrest... )

Text of the story:

Burglary arrest of Police chief's singer son 'hushed up'

A Northumbria officer paid compensation to a victim and colleagues deleted records of the £30,000 crime

Tom Harper and Robin Henry, Sunday Times January 21, 2018

A senior police officer's son was arrested on suspicion of burglary - but he was not charged, his father compensated the victim and details of the incident were deleted from the force's database.

Matthew Vant was questioned under caution on suspicion of burglary and criminal damage when he was a 19 year-year old university student after a party at his flat spilt over into a shop downstairs.

Detectives who went to the shop, a Cartridge World in Sunderland, found ink all over the walls, while a vintage record collection and several computers were missing. The investigating officer estimated the damage to be £30,000.

Vant is the lead singer of a punk rock band, also called Vant, who have performed at Glastonbury festival and on BBC Radio 1. His father, Greg, is a former assistant chief constable of Northumbria police.

Following the arrest of his son in November 2009, the force authorised the matter to be settled through the community resolution scheme with the shop owner receiving an apology and £1,000 from Greg Vant, who was still serving at the time. Such settlements do not lead to a criminal record.

When the incident was brought to the attention of senior officers, details of the crime were deleted from internal police databases. The decision is understood to have been an attempt to prevent the incident being leaked to the media.

Information about Vant's arrest was printed off before deletion and secretly retained in the force's safe.

A whistleblower who leaked details of the burglary incident to The Sunday Times said he thought the action taken by senior officers was completely inappropriate. "it seems it is one rule for the public and another for friends of Northumbria Police," said the source.

In 2016, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) received a complaint about the incident. The police watchdog, which changed its name this month to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, launched an independent investigation, which concluded that Greg Vant had no case to answer. He denies any involvement in the investigation into his son and said the decision to delete the logs was taken by a colleague.

He said his son had been "stupid" but was not guilty of any criminal offence. Northumbria Poilice said the IPCC "found no evidence of misconduct".

Under the FOIA I would like copies of the following documents and information;

1. Copies of the decisions and rationale relating to the use of community resolution in this case.

2. Do Northumbria Police still delete records from their systems and hide the information in police safe (and or in other places). I would like a copy of NP's policy relating to this part of the request.

3. I understand that when an arrest has been made, such as in this case, that the police are required to keep records of it against the name of the person who has been arrested until they reach the ago of 100 years of age (including on the national PNC as well as NP own systems). I would like to know if details of the arrest in this case, from NP systems and PNC,have also been deleted?

4. Regards 3 above, i.e. Any individual subject to a conviction, caution, reprimand, warning or arrest will have a nominal record placed on the Police National Computer (PNC). Before 2006, such records would be deleted after a specified period, but following the Bichard Inquiry into the Soham murders ACPO introduced new Retention Guidelines for Nominal Records on the PNC. From 2009, an individual’s record was retained until his 100th birthday, before being “stepped down” (importantly, this is not the same as the information being deleted).
All information contained on the PNC is “owned” by the Chief Constable of the force that entered it. The Retention Guidelines allow for an “exceptional case procedure” by which an individual can seek the removal of information from the PNC. As the name suggests, successful requests are likely to be rare. Generally speaking, the police will have to be persuaded that the offence to which the retained information relates did not actually take place at all, or that the requesting individual was not in fact connected with it in any way. Information will not be deleted simply because its disclosure might cause an individual difficulties in finding employment.

I also understand that any individual subject to a conviction, caution, reprimand, warning or arrest can apply to the owner of the information, in this case the Chief Constable of NP, to make an application under exceptional circumstances to have that information deleted.

For this part of the request I would like to know;

a, Was an exceptional circumstances application made to the Chief Constable to have details of the arrest etc, relating to this case, deleted from NP systems and also national PNC?

b, Regards 4 and 4 a. What was the outcome, decision of Chief Constable, NP concerning an application under exceptional circumstances in this case?

c, NP, after they were caught red-handed and exposed in national press, have claimed that the reason why they deleted the information from their systems (and concealed it in a safe) was because they did not want the media, press to find out (meaning the public too). Now that the press have exposed this, as above... I would like to know if NP have added, or will now add, the deleted information back onto their systems. If not, explain why not?

5. How many exceptional circumstances applications have been made to NP, its Chief Constable during the previous 3 years. How many of those have been granted. How many were refused?

6. How many times during the past 3 years have NP dealt with, settled cases using the community resolution scheme?

Also, I would like further information relating to this part of my request as follows;

a, How many of those case related to amounts of £5,000 or less?

b, How many were for amounts over £5,000 but below £10,000?

c, Over £10,000 and below £20,000?

d, Over £20,000 and below £30,000?

If there is any person information relating to this request I would be happy for you to redact name/s. However, I do require all recorded information that relates to the decision makers, those who dealt with this case (other officers that relate to this request). All of whom will be at Chief officer level, with public facing roles including, the Chief Constable.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

23 January 2018

Dear Freedom of Information Mailbox,

This is a request for an internal review on the grounds that;

1, This request could not be regarded as vexatious. And would not meet the criteria.
2. NP have applied Section 14(1) when it should only to be applied in the most extreme circumstances, or as a last resort,
3. There has been a persistent data and information breaches by NP while dealing with my FOIA and DPA requests (including the willful destroying / defacing and or suppressing of documents).
4. Section 14 is been abused by NP to avoid dealing with difficult request, questions.

Also, NP have not taking into account the purpose of the request and or the wider public interest.

There is a strong public interest in the requested information that relates to the issue of public trust and confidence in the police. The requested information relates to a matter which has been published in the Sunday Times Newspaper (on 21 January 2018) which is as follows;

Burglary arrest of Police chief's singer son 'hushed up'

A Northumbria officer paid compensation to a victim and colleagues deleted records of the £30,000 crime

Tom Harper and Robin Henry, Sunday Times January 21, 2018

A senior police officer's son was arrested on suspicion of burglary - but he was not charged, his father compensated the victim and details of the incident were deleted from the force's database.

Matthew Vant was questioned under caution on suspicion of burglary and criminal damage when he was a 19 year-year old university student after a party at his flat spilt over into a shop downstairs.

Detectives who went to the shop, a Cartridge World in Sunderland, found ink all over the walls, while a vintage record collection and several computers were missing. The investigating officer estimated the damage to be £30,000.

Vant is the lead singer of a punk rock band, also called Vant, who have performed at Glastonbury festival and on BBC Radio 1. His father, Greg, is a former assistant chief constable of Northumbria police.

Following the arrest of his son in November 2009, the force authorised the matter to be settled through the community resolution scheme with the shop owner receiving an apology and £1,000 from Greg Vant, who was still serving at the time. Such settlements do not lead to a criminal record.

When the incident was brought to the attention of senior officers, details of the crime were deleted from internal police databases. The decision is understood to have been an attempt to prevent the incident being leaked to the media.

Information about Vant's arrest was printed off before deletion and secretly retained in the force's safe.

A whistleblower who leaked details of the burglary incident to The Sunday Times said he thought the action taken by senior officers was completely inappropriate. "it seems it is one rule for the public and another for friends of Northumbria Police," said the source.

In 2016, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) received a complaint about the incident. The police watchdog, which changed its name this month to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, launched an independent investigation, which concluded that Greg Vant had no case to answer. He denies any involvement in the investigation into his son and said the decision to delete the logs was taken by a colleague.

He said his son had been "stupid" but was not guilty of any criminal offence. Northumbria Poilice said the IPCC "found no evidence of misconduct".

Newspaper story can be read on the following page; https://www.facebook.com/Burglary-arrest...

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland