Can you for the record state under what lawful authority Kent Police operates and if you follow without exception The Police Code of Conduct.

ivanataylor made this Freedom of Information request to Kent Police

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

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Kent Police should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Kent Police

Please provide the following under freedom of information:

Kent Police Authority Oaths – The Police Code of Conduct

Were the three Kent Police Officers badge numbers 12692, 12078, 10091 working according to the oaths they took as police constables on the evening of 6th February 2012 when they stopped a Freelander belonging to former Maidstone Borough Cllr Sheena:Williams (not a public servant) outside Kent County Council County hall offices, after her partner had delivered the independent newpaper the UKColumn to Maidstone Borough Council offices.

( Having previously complained of alarm & distress at the hands of plain clothed Kent Police Officers, who arrived unannounced at her home and failed to provide any identification, after she had cause to complain about Kent County Council children services)

What are the names and ranks of the 3 officers; initially a female officer number12692 and male officer number 12078 and later in attendance male officer number 10091

As Kent County Council has already admitted they operate under their own authority.

Quote : ‘It therefore acts under its own authority’

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/un...

Can you for the record state under what lawful authority Kent Police operates and if you follow without exception The Police Code of Conduct.

ivana Taylor

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

2 Attachments

Dear Ivana Taylor,
 
Thank you for your email. The Freedom of Information Act gives the public
a right to know recorded information held by public authorities.  Any
question which seeks a 'yes or no' answer, or which seeks to elicit
comment or opinion, does not fall within s.8 of the Act and is not
therefore a valid request.
 
The only part of your request which is deemed valid is the question as to
the names and ranks of the officers whose force numbers you mention. 
Please note that names constitute personal information which will almost
certainly be exempt under the Freedom of Information Act.
 
As to lawful authority, Kent Police operates according to statutory and
common law duties with associated powers.  It is not clear what is meant
by 'the Police Code of Conduct'.  There are Codes of Practice under the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; there are also the Police (Conduct)
Regulations 2008 which include the Standards of Professional Behaviour.
 
If you wish to complain about the officers in question, you may do so by
visiting:
 
[1]http://www.kent.police.uk/contact_us/hav...
 
Such matters are dealt with by our Professional Standards Department and
not by the Freedom of Information team.
 
In summary, this is not a refusal notice but rather an opportunity for you
either to amend your request in light of the comments above or to
re-direct this matter to a more appropriate department.  If we do not hear
from you within 60 days, we will deem your request to be withdrawn.
 
Yours sincerely,
Mr Giovanni Cacciacarro
Freedom of Information Advisor
 
Freedom of Information Team
Legal Services Department
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 652029
Internal: 19-4429/4413
>>> ivanataylor <[FOI #104933 email]> 07/02/2012
03:20 >>>
     Dear Kent Police
    
     Please provide the following under freedom of information:
    
     Kent Police Authority Oaths – The Police Code of Conduct
    
     Were the three Kent Police Officers badge numbers 12692, 12078,
     10091 working according to the oaths they took as police constables
     on the evening of 6th February 2012 when they stopped a Freelander
     belonging to former Maidstone Borough Cllr Sheena:Williams (not a
     public servant) outside Kent County Council County hall offices,
     after her partner had delivered the independent newpaper the
     UKColumn to Maidstone Borough Council offices.
    
     ( Having previously complained of alarm & distress at the hands of
     plain clothed Kent Police Officers, who arrived unannounced at her
     home and failed to provide any identification, after she had cause
     to complain about Kent County Council children services)
    
     What are the names and ranks of the 3 officers; initially a female
     officer number12692 and male officer number 12078 and later in
     attendance male officer number 10091
    
     As Kent County Council has already admitted they operate under
     their own authority.
    
     Quote : ‘It therefore acts under its own authority’
    
    
[2]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/un...
    
     Can you for the record state under what lawful authority Kent
     Police operates and if you follow without exception The Police Code
     of Conduct.
    
     ivana Taylor
    
     -------------------------------------------------------------------
    
     Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
     [FOI #104933 email]
    
     Is [Kent Police request email] the wrong address for
     Freedom of Information requests to Kent Police? If so, please
     contact us using this form:
     [3]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact
    
     Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be
     published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
     [4]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offic...
    
     If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your
     web manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.
    
    
     -------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Visible links
1. http://www.kent.police.uk/contact_us/hav...
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/un...
3. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/contact
4. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offic...

Dear Kent Police

To clarify

Please review all parts of your response where you have not provided for every insistence of refusals to provide information and quote the clause under the FOI Act or DPA that you rely on, with reasons.

I have refer to your code of practice, please provide the specific paragraphs in your code of practice that justified the behaviour of your officers.

ivana Taylor

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

This doesnt appear to add up as I know that former Cllr Sheena Williams put a complaint in.
"The response that was provided to you on the 17th May 2010 confirms that there have not been any complaints from members of the public about Kent
Police causing alarm and distress contrary to the Protection of Harassment
Act. This remains the case"

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/al...

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

2 Attachments

Dear Ms. Taylor,
 
With reference to the Freedom of Information request that we received from
you on 7 February 2012 please find attached the response letter.
 
Should you have any queries relating to this then please do not hesitate
to contact me.
 
Many thanks
 
Charlotte Pickin
 
 
Freedom of Information Team
Legal Services Department
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 652029
Internal: 19-4429/4413

Dear Giovanni Cacciacarro,
Please review each instance where you have refused to provide information requested.
You have quoted exemption from disclosure of the names of the officers on the grounds that you allege that Sch 1 of the DPA with s.40(2) of the FoIA applied with s.40(3)(a)(i)
With respect, these are NOT engaged.
The law refers to the processing ( of the request for their names ) to be carried out “ fairly and lawfully ”
In this case we are referring to three public servants carrying out their duties, in public, upon members of the public.
In these circumstances they have every expectation that they could be asked to identify themselves, and they fully understand that they have no right to anonymity. Providing their names would not only be fair and lawful, but mandatory.
It is not necessary here to quote the copious references where officers are publicly named, nor the legal precedents requiring identification, nor references to the numerous cases of televised news identifying officers.
Therefore, the reasons for your refusal are dismissed in their entirety.
Please arrange for a review of your decision to refuse to provide the information requested. The review should be carried out by someone senior in position and not in any way associated with the case or the officers.
Whether or not there is to be formal complaint is immaterial to this request for information.
Part of the request for information is now amended as follows:
Please provide the specific paragraphs in your Code of Practice issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984 and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, that justified the behaviour of your officers on 6 February 2012.

Yours sincerely,

Ivana Taylor

Freedom of Information Freedom of Information,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Taylor,
 
I acknowledge your request for an internal review of our response and
confirm this will be conducted by a colleague senior to me as required by
paragraph 40 of the Code of Practice issued under s.45 of the Freedom of
Information Act. 
 
The review will be conducted as soon as practicable and in any event
within 20 working days of your request for a review, namely by 20 March
2012.
 
Yours sincerely,
Mr Giovanni Cacciacarro
 
Freedom of Information Team
Legal Services Department
Kent Police
Force HQ
Sutton Road
Maidstone
Kent ME15 9BZ

E-mail: [Kent Police request email]
Tel: +44 (0)1622 654429/654413
Fax: +44 (0)1622 652029
Internal: 19-4429/4413

>>> ivanataylor <[FOI #104933 email]> 21/02/2012
20:40 >>>
     Dear Giovanni Cacciacarro,
     Please review each instance where you have refused to provide
     information requested.
     You have quoted exemption from disclosure of the names of the
     officers on the grounds that you allege that Sch 1 of the DPA with
     s.40(2) of the FoIA applied with s.40(3)(a)(i)
     With respect, these are NOT engaged.
     The law refers to the processing ( of the request for their names )
     to be carried out “ fairly and lawfully ”
     In this case we are referring to three public servants carrying out
     their duties, in public, upon members of the public.
     In these circumstances they have every expectation that they could
     be asked to identify themselves, and they fully understand that
     they have no right to anonymity. Providing their names would not
     only be fair and lawful, but mandatory.
     It is not necessary here to quote the copious references where
     officers are publicly named, nor the legal precedents requiring
     identification, nor references to the numerous cases of televised
     news identifying officers.
     Therefore, the reasons for your refusal are dismissed in their
     entirety.
     Please arrange for a review of your decision to refuse to provide
     the information requested. The review should be carried out by
     someone senior in position and not in any way associated with the
     case or the officers.
     Whether or not there is to be formal complaint is immaterial to
     this request for information.
     Part of the request for information is now amended as follows:
     Please provide the specific paragraphs in your Code of Practice
     issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
     1984 and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008, that justified the
     behaviour of your officers on 6 February 2012.
    
     Yours sincerely,
    
     Ivana Taylor
    
    

show quoted sections

Legal Services - HQ Legal Services - HQ,

1 Attachment

I write in response to your email dated the 21 February 2012 where you
have requested a review of each incident where Kent Police have refused to
provide information requested.   Following receipt of your initial request
you were advised that only part of your original question was valid.  
However, any disclosure of personal information was likely to be exempt.  
Therefore it is this refusal that I have reviewed.
 
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides public access to information
held by public authorities.    The Act covers any recorded information
that is held by a public authority.    The main principle behind the
legislation is that people have the right to know about the activities of
public authorities unless there is a good reason for them not to.
 
Kent Police treats all requests for information in accordance with the
legislation.   It also treats all requests for information equally except
under circumstances relating to vexatious requests and personal data.
 
You have been provided with the badge numbers for the three Kent Police
officers but have requested the disclosure of their names.    The Freedom
of Information Act contains a number of exemptions that allows the
withholding of information.   Some exemptions relate to a particular type
of information, for example, information relating to Government policy.  
Others are based on a harm test that would arise or would be likely to
arise from disclosure.   There is also an exemption if it is contrary to
the Data Protection Act.
 
You were correctly referred to section 40(2) as this exemption covers the
personal data of third parties.   This is an absolute exemption and the
disclosure of personal information would be a breach of the provisions of
the Data Protection Act.
 
The officers have identified themselves by their badge numbers and the
disclosure of this allows you to formalise any complaint that you may have
in relation to their conduct.   I note that you have referred in your
request to the PACE Codes of Practice and also to the Police (Conduct)
Regulations 2008.
 
I can confirm that this Force has applied the provisions of the Act
correctly.   The personal data concerning the individual officers will not
be disclosed to you and as you appear to have a complaint in accordance
with the conduct regulations, your correspondence is now being passed to
the Head of the Professional Standards Department.
Regards
Bev Newman
Head of Legal Services
 
Please note: this email contains confidential legal advice between the
Legal Services Department and yourself.  It must not be disclosed to any
other party without the consent of the Legal Services Department.

PSD - General Enquiries PSD - General Enquiries,

2 Attachments

Ms Taylor,

Please see attached letter from DI Tyler.

Regards

Public Complaints
Professional Standards Department
Kent Police
01622 652323
Fax 01622 652319
[email address]
Internal e-mail: PSD - General Enquiries

Dear Kent Police Public Servants

Unfortunately I along with many others have absolutely no faith in the police complaints procedure. Kent Police Service have previously failed to answer complaints (reference annotation of 17th February 2012) to provide documentation when required or identify Kent Police Officer’s , which of course could be construed by the public, as being allowed to hide behind a badge number in order to avoid being held accountable for any actions civilly. Kent Police appear to believe they are exempt from providing transparent services; secrecy is the opposite to transparency .
" The names of these officers constitute their personal
information. Given that responses to FOIA applications are deemed to enter the public domain, disclosure of the names would breach the first data protection principle..."

Now, please refer to:

http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/osma...

" The Crown Court's Conclusions.
1) Osman's conduct had led the Police Officers to draw a reasonable conclusion that he had consented. They were thus entitled to commence a search and to continue it when he became unwilling to co-operate.
2) Although there had been a breach of section 2(3)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Codes, in that the officers had failed to bring to Osman's attention their names and station, given the officers were clearly local officers policing a local event in broad daylight as expeditiously as possible and because numbers could readily be obtained from the officers' lapels, the breach was not so serious as to render the search unlawful on that account.
http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/w...
What information does the record contain?
The search record must contain the following information:
· the officer details
· the date, time and place of the stop and search
· the reason for the stop and search
· the outcome of the stop and search
· your self-defined ethnicity
· the vehicle registration number (if relevant)
· what the officers were looking for and anything they found
· your name or a description if you refuse to give your name – you do not have to provide the officer with your name and address.
Clearly, from the above, it is self evident that it is the police officers who must identify themselves when operating in the public.

ivanawatson

PSD - General Enquiries PSD - General Enquiries,

1 Attachment

Thank you for contacting the Professional Standards Department, Kent Police. We acknowledge receipt of your communication and will respond as soon as possible. Our office hours are 08:00 to 17:00 hours Monday to Friday.

Telephone: 01622 652323 for matters relating to Professional Standards during the above office hours.

Please dial 999 if there is threat to life or a crime is in progress.

Text for the Deaf: ‘police’ to 60066
Call 101 for all non-emergencies

We aim to provide a first class service, protect the public, reduce crime and make people feel safer.

PSD - General Enquiries PSD - General Enquiries,

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Watson

Receipt of your e-mail is acknowledged.

I refer to the letter dated 27th March 2012 from Detective Inspector
Tyler in this department. There is insufficient detail provided in your
response to record a complaint about the conduct of officers or members
of police staff. Your e-mail would appear to relate to the Freedom of
Information issues and has been forwarded to that department for any
action or response they may wish to make.

Yours sincerely

Jenny Walker

Public Complaints
Professional Standards Department
Kent Police
01622 652323
Fax 01622 652319
[email address]
Internal e-mail: PSD - General Enquiries

show quoted sections

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

I do wonder what is going on at Kent Police!!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/cr...

Five police held over ‘false crime statistics’ Kent Police

Oh dear, vote of no confidence in order perhaps? Breich of public trust. I believe this answers the FPI request and why they have not been able to answer.?

Dr. R. Gregory left an annotation ()

I have read all the correspondence with interest and, frankly, Ivana, whilst you may feel that you have just cause for a complaint against the relevant officers, Kent Police have no obligation to provide you with the officers names. Similarly, read again what you have posted re stop and search etc. Officers have a duty to provide their details, yes. Only their collar number, however. Officers have a collar number to identify them in the event of a complaint. No officer has a duty to give his or her name but must, if requested, identify himself or herself by collar number.

Judging by what I have read, and if the officers did indeed act unprofessionally, then you should complain to the relevant department. You do not, however, have a valid FOI Act request. Sorry.

ivanataylor left an annotation ()

Members of the Public have no obligation to give a name either all being equal under the law...

Dr. R. Gregory left an annotation ()

I am afraid members of the public DO have to give their details to the police, or authorised person. It is an offence not to.

Richard Card left an annotation ()

Dear Ivana

I do not think what you have been told is true.

The Protection from Harassment Act was abused by Kent Police to try to stop members of Ramsgate Royal British Legion complying with a call for information from PSNI Special Branch. This was about Deal Royal Marines Barracks security history and terrorist bombing and loyalist paramilitary activity based in Kent.

Chief constable RUC had raised concerns with Home Secretary March 1999 when Jack Straw refused to compel inquiry and report into the above matters called for by Kent Police Authority.

And that is when Kent Chief constable (refusing to investigate collusion in his own county) suddenly left the high profile collusion murder of Rosemary Nelson investigation in Ulster.

The information requested by PSNI was sent and Kent Police trying to intimidate by using Protection from Harassment Act were naffed off. They don't go beyond first warning (That they record even if you told them to f-ck off) as after that there is a right to a Court hearing. And they are more scared of the judge than the people they push around.

No protection from harassment act abuse complaints ? They might not record them but they were made.