Complaint about Re-opened Formal Investigation (2004) and subsequent events

The request was refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

daniela drysdale

ATTN.: Specialist Crime Directorate (Public Sector Fraud Squad) - Metropolitan Police Service

Dear Sir or Madam,

In March 2007 we lodged a complaint with the Specialist Crime Directorate in the Metropolitan Police, whereby we made a number of allegations about the outcome and the manner in which the 2004 Re-opened Formal Investigation into sinking of the FV Gaul had been conducted.

On 19 March 2007, Detective Chief Inspector Paul Whatmore, of SCD6 Fraud Squad, informed us that our complaint had been given the reference number: 2007030005813.

In October 2007, DC Emmerson Boyce, the assessing officer, informed us that he was preparing a report on the merits of the case, report that was to include his assessment and recommendations as to any possible further investigation of our complaint.

Based on DC Boyce's report, DCI Robin Cross (Economic and Specialist Crime, Operational Command Unit, Public Sector Fraud Squad), allegedly, later made his decision as to the further investigation of the case - decision which he communicated to us in a letter dated 19 February 2008.

I would be grateful if the Metropolitan Police could provide us with:

1. a copy of the above-mentioned report

2. any other documents relating to the assessment of our complaint or of the evidence that we made available for the SCD

3. a list of witnesses/parties who were questioned by the SCD during their assessment process

3. records of any relevant instructions/advice the assessing officer in this case received from his superiors prior to his submission and regarding the conclusions of his report

Thank you in advance for your kind assistance.

Yours faithfully,

Daniela Drysdale

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008110002084
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 07/11/2008. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* In March 2007 we lodged a complaint with the Specialist Crime
Directorate in the Metropolitan Police, whereby we made a number of
allegations about the outcome and the manner in which the 2004
Re-opened Formal Investigation into sinking of the FV Gaul had been
conducted.
* On 19 March 2007, Detective Chief Inspector Paul Whatmore, of SCD6
Fraud Squad, informed us that our complaint had been given the
reference number: 2007030005813.
* In October 2007, DC Emmerson Boyce, the assessing officer, informed us
that he was preparing a report on the merits of the case, report that
was to include his assessment and recommendations as to any possible
further investigation of our complaint.
* Based on DC Boyce's report, DCI Robin Cross (Economic and Specialist
Crime, Operational Command Unit, Public Sector Fraud Squad),
allegedly, later made his decision as to the further investigation of
the case - decision which he communicated to us in a letter dated 19
February 2008.
* I would be grateful if the Metropolitan Police could provide us with:

* A copy of the above-mentioned report ,
* Any other documents relating to the assessment of our complaint or of
the evidence that we made available for the SCD ,
* A list of witnesses/parties who were questioned by the SCD during
their assessment process ,
* Records of any relevant instructions/advice the assessing officer in
this case received from his superiors prior to his submission and
regarding the conclusions of his report .

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). 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 the MPS 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.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right
of complaint.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest
in the MPS.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Shannon Aldridge on telephone number 020 7161 3527
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Shannon Aldridge
Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied
with the decision you may make application to the Information
Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has
been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008110002084

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 7/11/2008
which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 7/11/2008,
I note you seek access to the following information:

In March 2007 we lodged a complaint with the Specialist Crime Directorate
in the Metropolitan Police, whereby we made a number of allegations about
the outcome and the manner in which the 2004 Re-opened Formal
Investigation into sinking of the FV Gaul had been conducted.
On 19 March 2007, Detective Chief Inspector Paul Whatmore, of SCD6 Fraud
Squad, informed us that our complaint had been given the reference number:
2007030005813.
In October 2007, DC Emmerson Boyce, the assessing officer, informed us
that he was preparing a report on the merits of the case, report that was
to include his assessment and recommendations as to any possible further
investigation of our complaint.
Based on DC Boyce's report, DCI Robin Cross (Economic and Specialist
Crime, Operational Command Unit, Public Sector Fraud Squad), allegedly,
later made his decision as to the further investigation of the case -
decision which he communicated to us in a letter dated 19 February 2008.

I would be grateful if the Metropolitan Police could provide us with:
A copy of the above-mentioned report ,
Any other documents relating to the assessment of our complaint or of the
evidence that we made available for the SCD ,
A list of witnesses/parties who were questioned by the SCD during their
assessment process ,
Records of any relevant instructions/advice the assessing officer in this
case received from his superiors prior to his submission and regarding the
conclusions of his report .

DECISION

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the
parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act, (the Act), within
which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if
permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public
authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions, which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.

I can confirm the requested information is held by the MPS.

Having identified and considered the relevant information, I am afraid
that I am not required by statute to release the information requested.
This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act.

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the
exemption applies.

This information has been fully exempted pursuant to the provision of
Sections 30(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a), 40(2) & 44(1)(a) of the Act.

Under Section 30 (1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a), of the Act, Public Authorities are
able to withhold information relating to investigations where its release
would, or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon an investigation
and the prosecution of offenders. This exemption can be applied following
completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to
establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding
the requested information.

In this instance disclosure would reveal MPS practices used in this and
therefore similar investigations, exposing operational methodology and
investigative techniques. The release of this information would impact on
the MPS by undermining our ability to fulfil the core function of law
enforcement and thereby hinder current and future operational
effectiveness.

Under Sections 40(2) & 44(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would, or would be likely to,
disclose any personal information and be a breach of any other enactment.
These exemptions can be applied without the need to complete a PIT.

In this case the information requested relates to a report by the MPS
which may contain personal information.

Section 30 of the Act provides: Investigations

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has
at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to
conduct with a view to it being ascertained-
(b) (i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or (ii)
whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it, (b) any
investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances
may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings
which the authority has power to conduct, or
(c) (c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to
conduct.
(2) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if-
(a) it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes
of its functions relating to- (i) investigations falling within subsection
(1)(a) or (b), (ii) criminal proceedings which the authority has power to
conduct, (iii) investigations (other than investigations falling within
subsection (1)(a) or (b)) which are conducted by the authority for any of
the purposes specified in section 31(2) and either by virtue of Her
Majesty's prerogative or by virtue of powers conferred by or under any
enactment,

Section 40 of the Act provides: Personal information

2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if—
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

Section 44 of the Act provides: Prohibitions on disclosure

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure (otherwise than
under this Act) by the public authority holding it—
(a) is prohibited by or under any enactment,

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have
considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant
for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under
the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in
disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to
provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a
genuinely interested and concerned applicant automatically opens it up for
a similar disclosure, including those who could use the information to
gain an advantage over the MPS in future investigations, through the
understanding of its investigative processes and lines of enquiry.

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except
through our Directorate of Public Affairs to the media. This is so
potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide
statements, in relation to current / unresolved investigations.
All witnesses are reliant on being dealt with in a confidential manner and
may be alarmed that their information could be released by the MPS into
the public domain in response to a simple request made under the Act. This
may prejudice future cooperation or indeed prevent persons coming forward
to assist in police enquiries.

High profile investigations, such as this one, are highly emotive and the
manner in which they are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so
that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become
public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Accountability

Disclosure of this information would enlighten members of the public as to
the action taken by the MPS in this investigation. This may go some way to
promoting awareness and accountability and would reinforce the MPS's
commitment to openness and transparency.

Public Debate

Release of this information would assist in any public debate on the MPS's
action in this investigation. The release of this information would
demonstrate the willingness of the MPS to be open and transparent with the
public showing what procedures and investigations are carried out.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Investigations

Information relating to an investigation will rarely be disclosed and only
where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring
disclosure. In this case, release of the requested information could allow
individuals to use the information contained in it to undermine the
methodology and techniques employed by the MPS and impede current / future
investigations.

Flow of Information

Release of this information may adversely affect the public's willingness
to come forward with information if they know how the MPS gathers
intelligence on such matters and how witnesses are protected. Witnesses
would be less inclined to give information during an investigation if they
knew that anyone could apply to see what they had said at a later date.

Confidence in the Police Service

The disclosure of some of this information to the public by the MPS would
undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS, and would
furthermore impact on the trust of witnesses in making statements in the
future.

Balancing Test

On balance, if disclosed, there could be the likelihood that the current
or future law enforcement role of this service could be compromised. It
cannot be justified that the public's interest would be served in
releasing this specific information if either aspect were to be
compromised in any way.

The Specialist Crime Directorate is keen to maintain a healthy positive
relationship with the individuals who make requests under the Freedom of
Information Act, I hope my decision does not adversely impact on this
honestly held viewpoint.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 7230 4019 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer

* Only if qualified exemption relied upon
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again -

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

daniela drysdale

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your response of 3 December 2008 above.

As you mention in your reply, the exemption pursuant to the provisions of Sections 30(1)(a)(b)(c), (2)(a), 40(2) & 44(1)(a) of the FOI Act, is a qualified exemption. This means that even though the information requested is exempt, it must be assessed whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in its disclosure - that is whether the harm that would be likely to be caused to an investigation would be greater than the wider public interest in disclosure.
It is on this basis that I argue that the factors, which weigh in favour of its disclosure, are far more important than the factors, which you invoke in favour of its non-disclosure. I will mention here only some of the most obvious pro-disclosure considerations:

1. Furthering the understanding and participation in the public debate of matters central to public safety (i.e. safety of seafarers), matters which are directly related to and dependant upon the quality of the outcomes of public inquiries, in general, and marine accidents investigations, in particular, and the manner in which these are conducted.

2. Re-enforcing public reliance on the results of these public inquiries by increasing public trust in the legal means that are available to the public for exposing and correcting unlawful behaviour, errors and ethical lapses in public inquiries, taking those responsible to account, and preventing similar irregularities from happening again.

3. Promoting accountability and transparency by the MPS for decisions taken by them in respect of (as you, yourself, call it) 'high-profile' and 'highly emotive' cases is a key issue. Moreover, given that the letter received from DCI Cross of the Economic and Specialist Crime Unit contains a number of serious falsehoods, finding out how this came to happen (i.e. whether there was something wrong with your investigative techniques or with your officers’ motivation) and taking the necessary corrective action would increase public trust in the MPS at a time when that trust seems to be rapidly disintegrating, and the Police needs to clearly demonstrate that they are indeed servants of the Crown and not just hired bouncers for the governing party.

4. Promoting accountability and transparency in the use of public funds – as regards the taxpayers’ money spent on the MPS and the huge costs associated with public inquiry in question.

5. Allowing members of the public to understand decisions made by public authorities affecting their lives. The decision the MPS made in response to our complaint affects the lives of the families of the Gaul victims, the lives of those who took part in the 2004 RFI, our lives and, most likely, the lives of those who might find themselves in similar circumstances in the future. It is therefore imperative that all these concerned parties, as well as the public at large, should be allowed to understand your decision.

6. Bringing to light information affecting public health and safety. Should the truth in respect of the Gaul RFI finally come to light, there would be important conclusions (different from those arrived at during the 2004 Gaul RFI) to be drawn and new measures to be established that would affect mariners’ safety.

7. There is always a strong public interest in access to justice and in ensuring that justice is done and seen to be done. In our case, there is a compelling and well-founded suspicion that justice was not done to the victims’ families, and this suspicion is increased by your refusal to provide information.

8. There is also a suspicion that the Police have themselves been involved in the cover-up following the 2004 Gaul RFI/miscarriage of justice, and, therefore, your refusal to disclose information could only re-enforce that suspicion.

9. What is more, your reasons for non-disclosure are weakened by the fact that the case has been abandoned, with no reasonable prospect of being reopened (as DCI Cross advised us in his letter), and, therefore, your disclosure of information about this case is not likely to prejudice an ongoing investigation or the right to a fair trial.

10. Your arguments that the release of information about the Gaul case would impact on and undermine future similar investigations, and that in disclosing information to one applicant you are “expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world” are further weakened by the fact that the PIT test must be applied on a case-by-case basis, as the Information Commissioner recommends, and not 'en gros', and, therefore, your release of information pertaining to one case would not bind you to releasing information about other cases.

I therefore conclude that finding out why you reached the conclusion you reached in respect of our complaint, and being able to see that your assessment was properly carried out outweigh your public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption, and that, in consequence, your PIT Balancing Test appears rather unbalanced.

As to any exemption under Sections 40(2) & 44(1)(a) of the Act, whereby Public Authorities are able to withhold information if its release would, or would be likely to, disclose any personal information and be a breach of any other enactment, (assuming here that you haven’t interviewed any parties other than those who played a part in the 2004 public inquiry) I would argue that your data protection concerns regarding the identities of the witnesses the Police interviewed as a result of our allegations are unnecessary, since those identities have been in the public domain ever since the official report on the 2004 Gaul RFI was published.

I would therefore urge you, taking into account the arguments above, to reconsider my FOI request.

I would also like to call for an internal review of the manner in which my request to you has been dealt with.

Many thanks and best regards

Yours sincerely,

Daniela Drysdale

P.S. Confirmation of receipt of the above communication would be very much appreciated.

daniela drysdale left an annotation ()

For further reference please see:

http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.com/200...

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would be grateful if you could acknowledge receipt of my communication of 8 December 2008 published at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours sincerely,

Daniela Drysdale

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448

I write in connection with your email dated 8 December 2008 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated to
your request for information relating to:

* FOI original case no.2008110002084.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 8 February
2008.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Sarah Pallen on telephone number 020 7161 3604 or at the address
at the top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448

* FOI complaint regarding original case no.2008110002084.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. Apologies for the typing error in my previous letter, the MPS
endeavour to respond to your complaint by 8 February 2009.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Sarah Pallen on telephone number 020 7161 3604 or at the address
at the top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Francis Irving left an annotation ()

More discussion of this request:

http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.com/200...

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448

Further to my letter of 12 December 2008, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

* FOI Complaint regarding original FOI number 2008110002084

I hope to complete your review no later than 18 February 2009. Should
there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon
as possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448

Further to my letter of 6 February 2009, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time provided to you due to unforeseen circumstances.
I do sincerely apologise for the delay on this case and wish to assure you
that your case is being treated as priority.

* Original FOI complaint number 2008120003448

I hope to complete your review no later than 27 February 2009. Should
there be any delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as possible.

I once again wish to apologise for the delay, and thank you for your
patience.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448

Further to my letter of 19 February 2009, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time provided to you in relation to:

* Original FOI number 2008110002084

I hope to complete your review no later than 13 March 2009. Should there
be any further delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible. I am continuing to work on trying to provide you with as much
information as I can in relation to this request.

I do apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448
Further to my letter of 27 February 2009, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time provided to you in relation to:

* Original FOI number 2008110002084

I hope to complete your review no later than 27 March 2009. This review is
near completion and I will be in contact with you shortly to update you on
the status of this case. Should there be any further delay, I will
contact you and update you as soon as possible.
I do sincerely apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448

Further to our letter of 13 March 2009, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time provided to you in relation to:

* Original case number 2008110002084.

I hope to complete your review no later than 17 April 2009. Should there
be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible.

I do apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448

Further to our letter of 27 March 2009, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time provided to you in relation to:

* FOI original case number: 2008110002084

I hope to complete your review no later than 1 May 2009. Should there be
any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible.

I would like to assure you that I am treating this case as priority and
hope to be able to provide you with a final response imminently.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 7161 3604 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Drysdale

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008120003448

Further to our letter of 27 February 2009, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint dated 8 December 2008 concerning:

* Original FOI case number 2008110002084.

Original request

March 2007 we lodges a complaint with Specialist Crime Directorate in the
MPS, whereby we made a number of allegations about the outcome and the
manner in which the 2004 Re-Opened Formal Investigation into sinking of
the FV Gaul had been conducted.

On March 19 2007, DCI Paul Whatmore, of SCD6 Fraud Squad, informed us that
our complaint had been given the reference number 2007030005813

In October 2007, DC Emmerson Boyce, the assessing officer, informed us
that he was preparing a report on the merits of the case, report that was
to indicate his assessment and recommendations as to any possible further
investigation of our complaint.

Based on DC Boyce's report, DCI Robin Cross (Economic and Specialist
Crime, Operational Command Unit, Public Sector Fraud Squad, allegedly,
later made his decision as to the further investigation of the case -
decision which he communicated to us in a letter dated 19 February 2008.

1. A copy of DC Boyce's report
2. Any other documents relating to the assessment of our complaint
or of the evidence that we made available for SCD
3. A list of witnesses/ parties questioned by SCD during their
assessment process
4. Records of relevant instructions/ advice the assessing officer
received from his superiors prior to his submission and
regarding the conclusion of his report.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:

* Set aside the original decision

REASON FOR DECISION

I would first like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologise for the
delay in your response, and thank you for your patience.

To complete this review, searches were conducted within the Specialist
Crime Directorate and the Directorate of Public Affairs.

I have withdrawn the use of Section 30 (Investigations), and Section 44
(Prohibitions on Disclosure) to exempt the requested information from
disclosure.

Question 1
This information is held by the MPS.
The majority of information contained within the report has been redacted
as it is exempt by virtue of Section 40(1)&(2) of the Act.
The Section 30 exemption has been considered in relation to this request
and in particular for this question one. In normal practice such an
exemption would continue to apply however, after conducting a public
interest test and reviewing the harm that may arise out of providing you
with the held information, the MPS find Section 30 will not be engaged in
this particular instance.

The remaining part of the report has therefore been attached to this
response letter.

In terms of information exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40(1)
and (2):

Section 17 (Refusal notice) of the Act provides:
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 40(1)&(2) of the Act provides:
(1) Any information to which a request for information relates is exempt
information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the
data subject.
(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.

This exemption is absolute and class based, I am therefore not required to
provide you with a harm test or public interest test.

Should you wish to request information, which may be held about yourself
by the MPS, please complete a Subject Access Request application. I have
provided you below with the link to the application form. You will need to
provide the MPS with proof of your identify as well as a **10 fee.

http://www.met.police.uk/information/

http://www.met.police.uk/information/req...

Please clearly state on the form that you require a search for information
which may be held about you within this report which was based on your
complaint, so that the case owners do as wide a search as possible in
regards to your request. I would advise you send your application through
to me personally so I can liaise and update the data protection case
owner. Please note you will not obtain third party information, which may
be held by the MPS via a Subject Access Request. Any third party that may
be mentioned within the report will only be able to gain access to their
own information if they process their own Subject Access Request.

As explained above, a public interest test has been conducted in regards
to providing you with the remaining held information on the report. As
required by the Act, please see the full public interest test below,
however please note this exemption does not require me to provide you with
a harm test.

Considerations Favouring Disclosure

Accountability
To enable the MPS as a public authority to be accountable in terms of how
we fulfill our role and function, it is in the public interest to allow
the public to gain access to the requested information. The release of the
held information therefore enables the public to understand that the MPS
conducts its work fairly, appropriately and that decisions taken on
particular allegations have been fully considered and reviewed.

Improper actions of public officials
Your request was in regards to allegations about the outcome/manner in
which the 2004 'Re-Opened formal Investigation' into the sinking of the FV
Gaul had been conducted. Providing you with the information held (while
exempting information which would identify individuals) is therefore in
the public interest and will hopefully go some way to correcting
speculation about whether any fraud or crime has been detected which would
warrant further police investigation on this high profile matter.

Public awareness and debate
The tragedy of the sinking of the Gaul was and is high profile in nature.
As there appears to be public speculation on the Internet regarding the
outcome/manner in which the 2004 'Re-Opened formal Investigation' into the
sinking of the FV Gaul had been conducted, providing the requested
information in a redacted form would help raise awareness of issues of
relevant to the public. Providing the information held would therefore go
some way to contribute to more accurate public debate in regards to the
allegation, which corrects rumour and falsehoods on any allegation of
misconduct.

Use of public funds/resources
As public resources and time has been spent on handling this allegation,
there is a public interest in accountability and justification for the
work conducted on it. Providing the requested information goes some way to
showing the public that the MPS take allegations seriously and invest
precious time, money and resources into ensuring the work they conduct is
just and reasonable.

Considerations Favouring Non-disclosure

Human Rights, Morals and Ethics
In this case it could be viewed as unfair to provide the held information.
This is particularly the case as the Re-Opened formal investigation has
been concluded and relevant bodies (such as the Department for Transport)
have publicly confirmed there has been no cause to re-open the 'Re-opened
Formal Investigation', as the methodology used - and hence the findings
reached - by the RFI were sound. As the RFI has already taken place,
resulting in a final conclusion, it could be said disclosure of the
requested information would fuel or encourage further 'trial by media'.
Therefore in this case it would be in the public interest and simply the
right thing to do, to withhold held information captured by this request.

Investigations
As you may be aware, it is rare that details of an investigation/
assessments into allegations will be disclosed as to do so will invariably
lead to the release of personal information, law enforcement techniques or
operational issues. These factors become less prominent with time and the
provision of information officially released to the public, for example,
in this case through channels such as Freedom of Information responses by
the Department for Transport.

Balance Test
I find the strongest reason to consider disclosing the information to be
Public Awareness and debate and the strongest reason to consider
withholding the information to be Investigations. On weighing up the
competing interests of this case, the MPS find in favour of releasing the
held information captured by this request, subject to the redaction of
personal information.

I therefore hope you will be pleased to find attached to this response the
redacted copy of the report you have requested.

Question Two
I can confirm there are no other documents held pertinent to this part of
your request. Outside of the Act I can confirm that the only other
information held which may be captured by this part of your request is the
report by DC Boyce and the letter you have already received from DCI Cross
dated 19 February 2009, which contains personal information. This letter
is therefore also exempt from disclosure under the Act by virtue of
Section 40(1)&(2).

Question Three and Four
Our searches failed to locate any held information pertinent to your
request for questions three and four.
In regards to question four, I have been informed there was verbal
communication between staff, however this is not classed as recorded
information for the purpose of the Act.

The answer to these final two questions therefore is that the 'information
is not held'.

In regards to the redacted report I have attached to this response, I
appreciate you may not be fully satisfied with the information provided,
but this case has been investigated and the case is now closed. In
addition and outside of the Act, I have been advised by SCD to inform you
that no fraud or crime that warranted police investigation has been
detected as stated in the report I have provided to you. The Specialist
Crime Directorate confirmed therefore that unless further substantial
evidence comes to light on this matter in regards to criminal activity, no
further investigation of this matter will be undertaken by SCD6.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Pallen
Freedom of Information Policy, Research, Review Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

daniela drysdale

Dear Sir or Madam,

Given the amount of information disclosed in the copy of your investigation report (attached to your response of 22 April 2009, above), I wonder what was the point of sending it at all.

Anyway, I would now like to make a few comments on your reluctance to provide the requested information.

--- Re: Question Three and Four ---

You state that "Our searches failed to locate any held information pertinent to your request for questions three and four." [i.e. Q3. A list of witnesses/ parties questioned by SCD during their assessment process]

If, as you claim, your searches have failed to locate any held information pertinent to Question 3 in my FOI request (regarding witnesses interviewed by the investigating officer), how comes that the main justification you give for the non-disclosure of the investigating officer’s full report (which was redacted out in the copy released to us) invokes the exemption provided under Section 40(1)&(2) of the FOI Act in respect of personal data?
If no witnesses were contacted in the course of your investigation, then whose personal data are you protecting?

Not to mention that a witness statement is NOT considered personal data under the provisions of the 1998 Data Protection Act, unless the witness himself is the focus of that information. (Personal data is defined under the Data Protection Act 1998 as information about a living identifiable individual, which relates to that individual. Just because a document contains a person’s name does not always mean that it is about that person.)

What is more, since your investigation officer stated in his report that he had reviewed "the materials provided at paragraphs 10 to 18" and "spent substantial time going through the material", I wonder why you edited out those paragraphs from the copy of his report, given that his words imply that the materials in question related to the conclusions of the Gaul RFI, not to any personal data. Why not disclose the substance of those paragraphs and only delete the personal references to those involved, if any?

Do you expect us to believe that 80% of your report contains only personal biographic detail?

--- Re: Human Rights, Morals and Ethics ---

"In this case it could be viewed as unfair to provide the held information.
This is particularly the case as the Re-Opened formal investigation has been concluded and relevant bodies (such as the Department for Transport) have publicly confirmed there has been no cause to re-open the 'Re-opened Formal Investigation', as the methodology used -and hence the findings reached - by the RFI were sound. As the RFI has already taken place, resulting in a final conclusion, it could be said disclosure of the requested information would fuel or encourage further 'trial by media'.
Therefore in this case it would be in the public interest and simply the right thing to do, to withhold held information captured by this request."

Your contention above – which, funnily, comes under the heading Human Rights, Morals and Ethics - is laughable, to say the least.

First of all, the fact that the Department for Transport (DfT), or any other government department for that matter, declares something publicly does not mean that it is also true. In fact, the DfT is one of the parties at which our allegations were levelled, so hardly an impartial arbiter.
Does the police always take for granted the public statements made by their suspects?

Furthermore, and for your future reference, I would like to inform you that the use of ‘sound’ methodology does not necessarily guarantee the obtainance of sound outcomes. (In the same way as the use of sound police weaponry cannot always guarantee that the police will shoot down the right targets)

As to whether disclosure of the requested information "would fuel or encourage further ‘trial by media'", I believe this is not something that the police should spend too much of their time worrying about. The role of the police is to protect the innocent, not the interests of the criminals.

My FOI request was intended to shine some light on the reasons for your refusal to investigate our complaint. You have, so far, been unable to provide us with any rational arguments. Your response is, therefore, worthless, and, since you are unable to justify it, your decision remains unfounded.

Consequently, I would urge you to review your assessment and provide me with the full, uncensored, information as requested and without further dalliance.

Yours sincerely,

Daniela Drysdale

Francis Irving left an annotation ()

Requester's view of the response:

http://the-trawler-gaul.blogspot.com/200...

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Ms Drysdale,

Thank you for your email and I do apologise for the delay in responding to you.

As you are unhappy with the final outcome of the internal review, your next step of action would be to lodge a complaint with the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

You can contact them at the following address:

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

Phone: 01625 545 700

Regards,

Sarah Pallen
Freedom of Information
Policy, Research, Review Officer

Metropolitan Police Service
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

T: 020 7161 3604
F: 020 7161 3503

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org