City London Police undercover car outside my home

The request was refused by City of London Police.

Dear City of London Police,

Before my trial my home was broken into and the burglar/s stole all my court defence paper work which is legally privileged. This was disclosed at my trial. City of London Police were un-interested in this serious criminal matter.

Please could you confirm or deny if vehicle Black Ford C-Max registration DN60 KYU is owned, used, operated or leased by City of London Police ?

The afore mentioned vehicle was seen approx 30 meters from my property parked up with 2 persons sat in the vehicle on Thursday 13 December and also Friday 14 December 2012.

Please can you confirm that vehicle and occupants were City of London Police ?

Please can you confirm that the vehicle and occupants were carrying out surveillance on me, Ian Puddick, my property and my vehicles ?

Can you provide the names and ranks of the officers/occupants of the vehicle ?

Can provide the name of the Operation that City of London Police are carrying out that involves myself, Ian Puddick?

Can you provide the name and rank of the officer (or officers) that authorised this operation and the surveillance of myself and my property ?

Can you confirm if City of London police officer/officers have entered my home property again and on what grounds and with a lawful warrant ?

Yours faithfully,

Ian Puddick

Yusuf Khiera,

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

div class=WordSection1>

Dear Mr Puddick,

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REF:  COL/12/701

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated 28 December
2012 which was received by the Information Access Office on 31 December
2012. I note that you seek access to the following information:

 

Before my trial my home was broken into and the burglar/s stole all my
court defence paper work which is legally privileged. This was disclosed
at my trial. City of London Police were un-interested in this serious
criminal matter.

    

Please could you confirm or deny if vehicle Black Ford C-Max registration
DN60 KYU is owned, used, operated or leased by City of London Police ?

    

The afore mentioned vehicle was seen approx 30 meters from my property
parked up with 2 persons sat in the vehicle on Thursday 13 December and
also Friday 14 December 2012.

    

Please can you confirm that vehicle and occupants were City of London
Police?

    

Please can you confirm that the vehicle and occupants were carrying out
surveillance on me, Ian Puddick, my property and my vehicles?

    

Can you provide the names and ranks of the officers/occupants of the
vehicle?

    

Can provide the name of the Operation that City of London Police are
carrying out that involves myself, Ian Puddick?

    

Can you provide the name and rank of the officer (or officers) that
authorised this operation and the surveillance of myself and my property?

    

Can you confirm if City of London police officer/officers have entered my
home property again and on what grounds and with a lawful warrant?

 

Your request will be considered in accordance with the provisions of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances we may be unable to achieve this deadline. If
this is likely you will be informed and given a revised time-scale at the
earliest opportunity.

 

We normally provide information free of charge but there may be occasions
when it would be appropriate to charge a fee where our costs are
excessive. In such cases we will advice you prior to processing your
request.

 

In some cases it may be necessary to transfer your request either in full
or in part to another public authority in order to answer you request as
comprehensively as possible. Again, you will be informed if this is the
case.

 

Should you have any further questions regarding your request, please
contact me via email, letter or telephone, quoting the reference number
above.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Khiera Yusuf

Information Access Officer

 

City of London Police

IMS

4th Floor

Bishopsgate

 

Tel: 020 7601 2145

Email: [email address]

 

P Please consider the environment before printing my email

show quoted sections

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal
#####################################################################################

References

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

Lockyear David,

2 Attachments

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

div class=WordSection1>

Dear Mr Puddick

 

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REF:  COL/12/701

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated 28 December
2012 in which you seek access to the following information:

 

Before my trial my home was broken into and the burglar/s stole all my
court defence paper work which is legally privileged. This was disclosed
at my trial. City of London Police were un-interested in this serious
criminal matter.

    

1.    Please could you confirm or deny if vehicle Black Ford C-Max
registration DN60 KYU is owned, used, operated or leased by City of London
Police?

    

The afore mentioned vehicle was seen approx 30 meters from my property
parked up with 2 persons sat in the vehicle on Thursday 13 December and
also Friday 14 December 2012.

    

2.    Please can you confirm that vehicle and occupants were City of
London Police?

    

3.    Please can you confirm that the vehicle and occupants were carrying
out surveillance on me, Ian Puddick, my property and my vehicles?

    

4.    Can you provide the names and ranks of the officers/occupants of the
vehicle?

    

5.    Can provide the name of the Operation that City of London Police are
carrying out that involves myself, Ian Puddick?

    

6.    Can you provide the name and rank of the officer (or officers) that
authorised this operation and the surveillance of myself and my property?

    

7.    Can you confirm if City of London police officer/officers have
entered my home property again and on what grounds and with a lawful
warrant?

 

Questions 1 to 7

 

Public Authorities are subject to two duties in respect of Section 1 of
the Freedom of Information Act.  The first is to confirm whether or not
the requested information is held (subsection 1 (a)) and the second is to
disclose the information if it is (subsection 1 (b)).  Both requirements
are subject to exemptions and where exemptions are applied, section 17 of
the Act requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which a)
states that fact, b) specifies the exemptions in question and c) states,
if that would not otherwise be apparent, why the exemption applies.

 

The City of London Police can neither confirm nor deny that it holds
information relating to an alleged investigation and surveillance
operation in respect of a named individual as the duty in section 1(1)
(a) of the Freedom of Information Act does not apply, by virtue of the
following exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act:

 

Section 30(3) – Investigations

 

Information is exempt by virtue of section 30 where it has, at any time,
been held for the purpose of an investigation.  The duty to confirm or
deny does not arise in relation to information which is exempt by virtue
of this section.  In this case, the questions refer to an alleged police
investigation and surveillance operation and if held, the information
would therefore be held for that purpose.  This is a class-based exemption
and it is not necessary to demonstrate the potential for harm to occur. 
It is however a qualified exemption subject to an assessment of the public
interest and the factors favouring and not favouring confirmation or
denial that the information is held or not held are listed below.

 

Factors favouring confirmation or denial that the information is held

 

The trial to which the request refers attracted some media attention and
confirmation or denial that the information is held would inform any
members of the public interested in the case whether or not the named
individual is the subject of a police investigation and surveillance
operation.

 

Factors not favouring confirmation or denial that the information is held

 

In cases where the information is held, confirmation of the existence of a
police investigation and surveillance operation would allow individuals
involved in crime to take action to avoid prosecution by destroying or
concealing evidence and moving or ceasing operations.

 

In cases where the information is not held, denial of the existence of a
police investigation and surveillance operation would allow individuals
involved in crime to continue offending in the knowledge that no
investigation exists.  It would also be the case that if it was confirmed
that no information is held in one case, it would be possible to identify
those cases where information is held if, in those other cases, a neither
confirm nor deny response was provided.

 

Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement

 

Information is exempt by virtue of section 31 where its disclosure would,
or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the
apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the administration of
justice.  The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent
that, compliance with section 1(1) (a) would, or would be likely to,
prejudice any of the matters mentioned above.  This is a prejudice-based
exemption and the potential harm in confirming or denying that the
information is held is detailed below.  It is also a qualified exemption
subject to an assessment of the public interest and the factors favouring
confirmation and non-confirmation that the information is held or not held
are listed below.

 

Identification of Harm

 

Disclosure of any information relating to investigation techniques is
liable to render such techniques less effective and compromise the ability
of the force to prevent and detect crime.

 

Factors favouring confirmation or denial that the information is held

 

Confirmation or denial that the information is held would disclose whether
or not investigation techniques of the type described are used in the
circumstances outlined in the request.

 

Factors not favouring confirmation or denial that the information is held

 

There is an expectation that that all resources made available to the
service are used efficiently and it would not be in the public interest to
confirm or deny information is held, where such confirmation or denial
would compromise the ability of the service to prevent and detect crime.

 

Section 40(5) – Personal Information

 

The duty to confirm or deny does not arise by virtue of section 40(5)
where giving such confirmation or denial would disclose personal data, in
contravention of any of the Data Protection Act Principles or Section 10
of the Data Protection Act.  Any disclosure made by virtue of the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act is regarded as a public
disclosure and not a disclosure to an individual.  If the requested
information is held, confirmation of that fact would confirm that the
named individual is the subject of a Police investigation and surveillance
operation even if the information itself is not disclosed.  Confirmation
or denial would therefore disclose personal information to the public
domain which is likely to be unfair and be in contravention of principle
one of the Data Protection Act.  This is a class-based exemption and it is
not necessary to demonstrate the potential for harm to occur.  However
Section 40(5) is not listed in the schedule of absolute exemptions
contained in Section 2(3) and it is therefore necessary to consider the
public interest in neither confirming nor denying that the information is
held.  The factors favouring and not favouring confirmation or denial are
listed below.

 

Factors favouring confirmation or denial that the information is held

 

The trial to which the request refers attracted some media attention and
confirmation or denial that the information is held would inform any
members of the public interested in the case whether or not the named
individual is the subject of a police investigation and surveillance
operation.

 

Factors not favouring confirmation or denial that the information is held

 

Confirmation or denial that information relating to the named individual
is held, would breach the first principle of the Data Protection Act
relating to fairness and would therefore be unlawful.

 

Balancing the public interest

 

This request relates to a trial and alleged continuing police
investigation in respect of a named individual.  Confirmation or denial
that the information exists will clearly be of interest to the named
individual and although the trial received some media attention we believe
that this specific case is of little interest or benefit to the wider
public.  By contrast, for the reasons stated above, even if no information
exists, confirmation or denial would harm law enforcement and if
information did exist, would harm an investigation.  Confirmation or
denial would also breach the first Data Protection Act principle and
therefore be unlawful.  It is therefore our view that the public interest
does not favour confirmation or denial in this case.

 

Additional information relating to your request

 

The City of London Police does not participate in any investigative or
surveillance techniques that it does not believe to be fully compliant
with all relevant legislation and good practice.

 

Please note that Section 7 of the Data Protection Act provides a right of
access to personal data about the applicant, known as a Subject Access
Request.  Such disclosures are private and to ensure that the information
is only disclosed to the data subject, proof of identity is required. 
Such applications are additionally subject to the payment of a £10 fee.

 

If you believe that the City of London Police holds personal data about
you and you wish to make a Subject Access Request, an application form and
further information may be viewed via the following link:

 

[1]http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/NR/rdo...

 

If you wish to make a complaint against any City of London Police Officer,
may I suggest that you write to:

 

The postal address for official correspondence is:

Professional Standards Directorate

City of London Police

PO Box 36451

182 Bishopsgate

London

EC2M 4WN

 

Email contact details

[2][email address]

 

Should you have any further questions regarding your request, please
contact me via e-mail, letter or telephone, quoting the reference number
above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Inspector Dave Lockyear

Information Access Manager

P Please consider the environment before printing my email

show quoted sections

This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
by MailMarshal
#####################################################################################

References

Visible links
1. http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/NR/rdo...
2. mailto:[email address]
3. http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org