Complaints against Steve Ashman (Northumbria Police) since he became Chief Constable - Martin McGartland request

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner.

Martin McGartland (Account suspended)

Martin McGartland

03 July 2017

Dear Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner,

I would like you to supply me with information under FOIA.

1. How many complaints have been made against Steve Ashman since he became Chief Constable of Northumbria Police?

2. How many complaints have resulted in referrals to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)?

I would like the data for 1 & 2 broken into date order and my request is for all information about all complaints, even those that were not recorded.

I do not wish for you to disclose any personal data relating to Steve Ashman. The information that I am requesting relates to Mr Ashman in his public facing role as Chief Officer of Northumbria Police.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Enquiries, Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr McGartland,

Subject: Freedom of Information Acknowledgement – Reference 142017.

I refer to the request, which you have made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for records held by this office.

Your request was received by this department on 3 July 2017.

A final decision on your request would normally be sent to you within 20 working days of receipt of your request. This means that you can expect to receive your decision by 31 July 2017.

There are some limited situations under the Freedom of Information Act, which could mean that the period for a final decision may be longer than the normal 20 working days. If this occurs in your request, we will promptly advise you in writing.

Should our final decision not reach you on time, please feel free to contact the officer named to discuss any problems that may have arisen.

If you have not heard from us once the allotted time has expired, you are automatically entitled to appeal to this department for a review of the matter. This review is a full and new examination of the matter, and is carried out by a more senior member of staff of this office.

In the event that you need to make such an appeal, you can do so by writing to Kevin Payne of this department at the details given below. You should state that you are appealing because an initial decision was not sent to you within the time permitted. In that event, you would normally have 40 days (after the original decision should have been sent to you) in which time to make the appeal.

Best Wishes.

Kevin

Kevin Payne
Office of Dame Vera Baird QC
Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria

show quoted sections

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria, Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner

1 Attachment

Dear Mr McGartland,

 

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police & Crime Commissioner
made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act').

 

Thank you for your e mail dated 3 July 2017 in which you made a request
for access to certain information which may be held by the Police and
Crime Commissioner for Northumbria.

 

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police
Crime Commissioner), subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

 

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

You asked:

1. How many complaints have been made against Steve Ashman since he became
Chief Constable of Northumbria Police?

2. How many complaints have resulted in referrals to the Independent
Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)?

I would like the data for 1 & 2 broken into date order and my request is
for all information about all complaints, even those that were not
recorded.

In response

 

We have taken this opportunity to review this request alongside other
requests submitted to other public authorities by you, particularly to
Northumbria Police. We have given consideration to the recent Decision
Notice dated the 25th April 2017 issued regarding your requests submitted
to Northumbria Police and a previous decision notice from 3rd July 2012,
again relating to you and regarding a similar request related to the
disclosure of complaint data regarding a Senior Officer within Northumbria
Police. That decision notice stated that Northumbria Police was entitled
to apply Section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act and that this exemption was indeed
engaged. 

 

Having reviewed other requests submitted by you, I believe that this
request is linked to the other numerous requests and therefore can fairly
be classed as vexatious in its nature.

 

You have been in touch with Northumbria Police for many years regarding
dissatisfaction with the on-going investigation into the incident when you
were shot in 1999.

 

From reviewing other requests submitted by you as well as other
information available via simple internet searches, It is apparent that
you target Senior Officers who may be involved in your issues with
Northumbria Police.

 

The requests submitted regarding Officers form a small part of a large
volume of requests submitted by you. Many requests mix accusations and are
placed into a public arena in an effort to further grievances against
Northumbria Police.

 

It is clear that you have issues with Officers that have dealt with you
and you use public facing arenas to air these grievances. A simple
internet search brings back multiple entries specifically about the Senior
Officers of Northumbria Police and in my view it is clear from the type
and nature of the data available in such searches that you are using the
FOIA arena to further this campaign against Northumbria Police.  Your
recent Decision Notice from the 25th April 2017 stated, “there is no wider
value or purpose beyond the complainant’s public pursuit of his grievance
against Northumbria Police” and my view is that this request is yet
another example where you are attempting to exploit the FOIA process to
embarrass and harass Senior Officers within Northumbria Police in an
attempt to further your own grievance.

It is apparent that this request and other requests have been made as a
direct result of concerns about the handling of the investigation.
Responses that have been supplied have almost inevitably been followed up
by further requests for information, requests for clarification and
requests for internal reviews.

 

I believe that you are attempting to use the What Do They Know arena in an
effort to somehow embarrass and harass Northumbria Police.  I draw your
attention to the recent Decision Notice
([1]https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...)
and set out in the Reason for Decision that the Commissioner stated that
the continued approaches from Mr McGartland were “unreasonable and that
the public comments made by the complainant amounted to harassment of
Northumbria Police and its staff”.  It is my belief that you are again,
via this request and the What Do They Know platform, pursuing this
campaign against staff members of Northumbria Police and that your
intention is to use the data to unfairly discredit senior Officers within
Northumbria Police.

 

As a result of the above, your request can be fairly be classed as
vexatious and accordingly no response is required.

 

Please note that following this response, requests on this and related
matters will be classed as vexatious and no acknowledgement or response
will be provided.

Yours sincerely.

Kevin Payne
Office of Dame Vera Baird QC
Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Martin McGartland (Account suspended)

Martin McGartland

31 July 2017

Dear Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria,

I note that Vera Baird, her office, and staff are now repeating the Northumbria Police Lie that I am, according to them and without any evidence at all, claim; "I believe that you are attempting to use the What Do They Know arena in an effort to somehow embarrass and harass Northumbria Police. "

These lies (and further smears of me by Northumbria Police are the norm. Northumbria Police will say anything and they will Lie and smear me just to keep a lid on the serious corruption by them in my cases (and against me). They have been exposed so many times; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqphnDx... and Northumbria Police Lies, smears against Martin McGlartland; https://www.scribd.com/document/34925451...

Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen and their corrupt PSD have held secret meetings, sent secret correspondence, discussions with ICO, IPCC and others. Northumbria Police have willfully lied about me, my cases and also about their latest Lies and Smear of "embarrass and harass". That has been cooked up during the past few months and as a result of a subject access request, I made in January 2016. That request was delayed for 13 months, it continues to be delayed (and is being investigated by Information Commissioner at this stage).. Northumbria Police used the 13-month delay to destroy, hide and even deface
my personal information, documents they held concerning me. This is unlawful as well as in clear breach of the DAP 1998. The documents that were destroyed, have been hidden etc by Northumbria Police were documents that not only incriminated Northumbria Police, some of its officers but were also compelling evidence of serious corruption and cover up by them in my cases.

I would also like to place on the record that no type of action has ever been taken against me by Northumbria Police in relation to these latest false and malicious smears against me. The reason for this is because it is false.

I have a right to expose corruption by Northumbria Police in my cases and I will continue to do so. The difference between me and Northumbria Police is I have all the evidence I need to prove what I say in public, to prove the corruption.

I would like a review of this request because; 1. OPCC |Northumbria has more or less copied and pasted a response sent to me by another public authority (Northumbria Police) in reply to a separate request I made to them, here; https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d... I will be asking the ICO to investigate this.

2. OPCC Northumbria is not Northumbria Police, separate public authorities so far as FOIA and FOI requests are concerned, and OPCC cannot copy, exempt requests based on decisions made by Northumbria Police (other public authorities). It is my understanding that FOI request is required to be dealt with on the merits of the requests. For your information, I have copied my reply of 18 July 2017 to Northumbria Police below.

3. The FOIA does not define the term vexatious, but it was discussed before the Upper Tribunal in the case of the Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield[2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013).

In that case, the Upper Tribunal concluded that the term ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”. The Tribunal made clear that the decision of whether a request is vexatious must be based on the circumstances surrounding the request.

The Dransfield judgement proposed four broad issues that public authorities should bear in mind when considering whether FOI requests are vexatious:
* the burden of meeting the request;
* the motive of the requester;
* the value or serious purpose of the request; and
* any harassment or distress caused.

(Application of section 14(1) section 12; "It is important to remember that section 14(1) can only be
applied to the request itself, and not the individual who submits it. An authority cannot, therefore, refuse a request on the grounds that the requester himself is vexatious. Similarly, an authority cannot simply refuse a new request solely on the basis that it has classified previous requests from the same individual as vexatious."; https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-wi...

I also refer OPCC to section 59 and 60 of ICO advice which states; "The requester’s past pattern of behavior may also be a relevant consideration. For instance, if the authority’s experience of dealing with his previous requests suggests that he won’t be satisfied with any response and will submit numerous follow-up enquiries no matter what information is supplied, then this evidence could strengthen any argument that responding to the current request will impose a disproportionate burden on the authority.
(60.) However, the context and history may equally weaken the argument that a request is vexatious. For example, it might indicate that the requester had a reasonable justification for their making their request and that because of this the public authority should accept more of a burden or detrimental impact
than might otherwise be the case."

The Commissioner’s guidance makes clear that section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself, and not to the individual who submits it. An authority cannot, therefore, refuse a request on the grounds that the requester himself is vexatious. Similarly, an authority cannot simply refuse a new request solely on the basis that it has classified previous requests from the same individual as vexatious.

Any claim by the OPCC that this request is vexatious not only baseless but the OPCC has not produced any evidence to show that it is. OPCC is publicly funded, tasked to hold the Northumbria CC, police to account on behalf of the public. OPCC is expected to be open and transparent. with the public. The public has a right to know details about complaints against the CC. It is also in the public interest.

OPCC have not included any evidence (nor even any details) that would allow it to exempt this request on the grounds, according to them, that it is vexatious Furthermore, OPCC have not included any evidence to show, as they are claiming, that I, as they claim, are making request to them to "embarrass and harass" OPCC staff (or even NP).

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland reply to Northumbria Police

Dear Northumbria Police,

It is very clear that you are once again covering up details about complaints that have been made against DCC Winton Keenen and are lying to do so by making your latest false claims against me as a result of my exposing police corruption and cover up in my cases by DCC Winton "CoverUp" Keenen and Northumbria Police.

You refer to an ICO Decision Notice and set out in the Reason for Decision that stated “unreasonable and that the public comments made by the complainant amounted to harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff”. Those lies, false information were given to the ICO by you (including DCC Winton Keenen).

Let us all remind ourselves of what Northumbria Police's position was for 18 years during the time that they were lying and covering up (including by Winton Keenen) of the smear campaign against me during the time when I was fighting for my life. When Northumbria Police lied to the press (In Secret) by connecting my shooting to drugs, criminal gangs And more importantly by stating that my shooting was nothing at all to do with the IRA. Northumbria Police (including DCC "Cover-Up" Winton Keenen and Superintendent Chris "Where is her now" Thomson) covered up that smear campaign for 18 years. They lied and Lied and lied until my own investigations uncovered the evidence, the "smoking gun", in the form of 3 sworn independent
court witness statments that not only proved that Northumbria Police was behind the smearing of me But also that they had been behind the 18 year cover up. It was only then that Northumbria Police (And DCC Keenen were forced, while kicking and screaming, into coming clean and telling the truth. If it were not for my investigations Northumbria Police and DCC Keenen would have continuted with thier lies, their corruption and cover up. {The Evidence EX01 - the 3 sworn independent Court Witness Statements: https://www.scribd.com/document/34925451... }

Northumbria Police, while lying to ICO about the history of my case, omitted most of their deeds, they concealed the corruption from the ICO. Also, Northumbria Police did not make the ICO aware that DCC Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police covered up my complaints that I made to the force relating to the smearing of me, the 18 year cover up. That DCC Winton Keenen, Northumbria Police delayed my smear complaint for 3 years and them whitewashed it, never investigated my smear complaint. He even lied by claiming it was a Direction and Control matter { The Evidence EX02 - Winton Keenen Whitewash - Refer to page 23; https://www.scribd.com/document/73581080... }

And that Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police failed to investigated a new complaint that I made (when I uncovered the 3 sworn witeness statements) in 2014. That too was delayed by a further 3 years. Then Winton Keen and Northumbria Police applied to the IPCC to disapply the complaint But they concealed the 3 sworn witness statements and other compelling evidence from the IPCC. The end result was that the IPCC ordered that my smear complaint be investigated. The IPCC, in there decision letter, pointed out that Northumbria police had lied (inconsistencies) regarding the smearing of me at different stages.

Winton Keenen (his PSD) and Northumbria Police are continuing with the corruption by investigating my smear complaint even when they have been at the coal-face of the corruption, the cover ups (and whitewashes) relating to it, my case for the past 18 years. My smear complaint will result in another Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen whitewash, even further corruption.; Further Info regards the smearing of me by Northumbria Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqphnDx...

No proper investigation will ever be carried out as long as Winton Keenen, his PSD and Northumbria Police is involved with my cases. Winton Keenen lied in emails about an apology that he knew had never been given to me. Did Northumbria Police tell the ICO that? Of course not, butter wouldn't melt.

Northumbria Police also failed to tell the ICO that Winton Keenen lied to me about the Roger Ford review. Winton Keenen covered up the Roger Ford review (and the findings) from me as the victim. He also deliberately chose to ignore Roger Fords recommendations. In fact, Winton Keenen concealed those from me as the victim. He also covered up the findings, recommendations because of the overall cover up in my case. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police have been protecting not only the IRA But also the IRA terrorists who tried to murder me. All this was concealed from the ICO.

Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police concealed over information from ICO including the important fact (further corruption) that the DNA of the person who tried to murder me was deliberately kept off the DNA Database for more than for more than 8 years. The too was done to protect the IRA, the IRA terrorist who tried to murder me. I, from my own investigations, uncovered this. This too was covered up from me as the victim by Northumbria Police. It was only at that stage that Northumbria Police was again forced (while kicking and screaming) into admitting to further corruption.

This, and a great deal more, has been covered up, never been investigated by Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen. Why? Because Winton Keenen (his old bosses) were responsible for the corruption, they all played a part. I could write a book about the corruption in my cases.

Winton Keenen has lied to me as the victim at every stage. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police, so far as I and my cases are concerned, have been dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that they had lied, covered up and smeared me. I have been vindicated. I have also shown, when it concerns me, my cases, that Winton Keenen has lied time and again, has covered up my cases (and whitewashed my complaints), have been protecting the people, the terrorists (and the IRA) who tried to murder me.

Moreover, the evidence shows that had I not have pursued my case, exposed the corruption, the lies, the cover ups that Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police would have continued with thir cover up, the corruption in my cases. My attempted murder case would have been brushed under the carpet and the terrorists would continue to be protected from arrest.

The latest Winton Keenen, Northumbria Police lies (and corruption) and the false claims of "harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff” by me because, according to Team Winton of a "grievances". is nothing other than more lies. All I have done, will continue to do, is to expose the corruption, the abuses of power by Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police as well as the cover ups by them in my cases and the scandalous abuse of power.

The fact is that the latest Lie, False claim by Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police against me of "harassment" is nothing more than pure PoppyCock. More corruption, lying, giving false, incomplete information to ICO just to keep all of the complaints made against DCC Keenen secret (coveredup) from the public.

I have all the evidence I would need to backup (and prove) everything I have ever written and said about Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police so far as my cases are concerned. I wounder why the ICO never asked the important question. Why has no action ever been taken against Martin McGartland? The answer is simple. Because Winton "Coverup" Keenen and Northumbria Police will be well aware that they would have to give evidence and face cross-examination from me. Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police are not that stupid.

I am doing a public a service by Exposing corruption. Winton Keenen, his PSD is the one who is covering up details about complaints made against him, why would he do that. What is he hiding.

These are just the latest of many dirty tricks shamefully, disgustingly, and disgracefully employed by Winton "cover up" Keenen and Northumbria Police against me over the years. There will be many more Uncomfortable truths which will be exposed at a later date. Truth sounds like Hate to those who Hate the Truth.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland
Page Link: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria, Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr McGartland,

I refer to the request, which you have made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for records this office may hold.

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of the response you received in relation to the above mentioned Freedom of Information Request, which will be carried out by a colleague.

A response will be supplied upon completion of the review.

Best Wishes.

Kevin

Kevin Payne
Office of Dame Vera Baird QC
Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria

show quoted sections

Hanora Brennan left an annotation ()

It's baffling to me that the Northumbria Police has put this man's life at risk time and again, despite his saving of a considerable number of lives when employed by MI6 . This man deserves medals not meddling by the police!!!!!!

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria, Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr McGartland,

 

I am writing further to your recent email dated 31 July 2017, whereby you
have requested an internal review of the earlier response provided to you
regarding your FOI request. I am now in a position to respond as follows.

Initial FOI Request

1. How many complaints have been made against Steve Ashman since he
became  Chief Constable of Northumbria Police?

 

2. How many complaints have resulted in referrals to the Independent 
Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)?

 

I would like the data for 1 & 2 broken into date order and my request is 
for all information about all complaints, even those that were not 
recorded.

 

Initial FOI Response

We have taken this opportunity to review this request alongside other 
requests submitted to other public authorities by you, particularly to 
Northumbria Police. We have given consideration to the recent Decision 
Notice dated the 25th April 2017 issued regarding your requests submitted 
to Northumbria Police and a previous decision notice from 3rd July 2012, 
again relating to you and regarding a similar request related to the 
disclosure of complaint data regarding a Senior Officer within
Northumbria  Police. That decision notice stated that Northumbria Police
was entitled  to apply Section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act and that this
exemption was indeed  engaged.

 

Having reviewed other requests submitted by you, I believe that this 
request is linked to the other numerous requests and therefore can fairly 
be classed as vexatious in its nature.

 

You have been in touch with Northumbria Police for many years regarding 
dissatisfaction with the on-going investigation into the incident when
you  were shot in 1999. 

 

From reviewing other requests submitted by you as well as other 
information available via simple internet searches, It is apparent that 
you target Senior Officers who may be involved in your issues with 
Northumbria Police.

 

The requests submitted regarding Officers form a small part of a large 
volume of requests submitted by you. Many requests mix accusations and
are  placed into a public arena in an effort to further grievances
against  Northumbria Police.

 

It is clear that you have issues with Officers that have dealt with you 
and you use public facing arenas to air these grievances. A simple 
internet search brings back multiple entries specifically about the
Senior  Officers of Northumbria Police and in my view it is clear from the
type  and nature of the data available in such searches that you are using
the  FOIA arena to further this campaign against Northumbria Police. 
Your  recent Decision Notice from the 25th April 2017 stated, “there is no
wider  value or purpose beyond the complainant’s public pursuit of his
grievance  against Northumbria Police” and my view is that this request is
yet  another example where you are attempting to exploit the FOIA process
to  embarrass and harass Senior Officers within Northumbria Police in an 
attempt to further your own grievance.

 

It is apparent that this request and other requests have been made as a 
direct result of concerns about the handling of the investigation.

Responses that have been supplied have almost inevitably been followed up 
by further requests for information, requests for clarification and 
requests for internal reviews.

 

I believe that you are attempting to use the What Do They Know arena in
an  effort to somehow embarrass and harass Northumbria Police.  I draw
your  attention to the recent Decision Notice

([1]https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...)

and set out in the Reason for Decision that the Commissioner stated that 
the continued approaches from Mr McGartland were “unreasonable and that 
the public comments made by the complainant amounted to harassment of 
Northumbria Police and its staff”.  It is my belief that you are again, 
via this request and the What Do They Know platform, pursuing this 
campaign against staff members of Northumbria Police and that your 
intention is to use the data to unfairly discredit senior Officers within 
Northumbria Police.

 

As a result of the above, your request can be fairly be classed as 
vexatious and accordingly no response is required.

 Please note that following this response, requests on this and related 
matters will be classed as vexatious and no acknowledgement or response 
will be provided.

 

Internal Review Request

 

31 July 2017

 

Dear Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria,

 

I note that Vera Baird, her office, and staff are now repeating the
Northumbria Police Lie that I am, according to them and without any
evidence at all, claim; "I believe that you are attempting to use the What
Do They Know arena in an effort to somehow embarrass and harass
Northumbria Police. "

 

These lies (and further smears of me by Northumbria Police are the norm.
Northumbria Police will say anything and they will Lie and smear me just
to keep a lid on the serious corruption by them in my cases (and against
me).  They have been exposed so many times;  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqphnDx... and   Northumbria Police
Lies, smears against Martin McGlartland; 
https://www.scribd.com/document/34925451...

 

Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen and their corrupt PSD have held secret
meetings, sent secret correspondence, discussions with ICO, IPCC and
others. Northumbria Police have willfully lied about me, my cases and also
about their latest Lies and Smear of "embarrass and harass".  That has
been cooked up during the past few months and as a result of a subject
access request, I made in January 2016.  That request was delayed for 13
months, it continues to be delayed (and is being investigated by
Information Commissioner at this stage)..  Northumbria Police used the
13-month delay to destroy, hide and even deface my personal information,
documents they held concerning me. This is unlawful as well as in clear
breach of the DAP 1998.  The documents that were destroyed, have been
hidden etc by Northumbria Police were documents that not only incriminated
Northumbria Police, some of its officers but were also compelling evidence
of serious corruption and cover up by them in my cases.

 

I would also like to place on the record that no type of action has ever
been taken against me by Northumbria Police in relation to these latest
false and malicious smears against me.  The reason for this is because it
is false.

 

I have a right to expose corruption by Northumbria Police in my cases and
I will continue to do so.  The difference between me and Northumbria
Police is I have all the evidence I need to prove what I say in public, to
prove the corruption. 

 

I would like a review of this request because;  1.  OPCC |Northumbria has
more or less copied and pasted a response sent to me by another public
authority (Northumbria Police) in reply to a separate request I made to
them, here;  
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...
I will be asking the ICO to investigate this. 

 

2.  OPCC Northumbria is not Northumbria Police, separate public
authorities so far as FOIA and FOI requests are concerned, and OPCC cannot
copy, exempt requests based on decisions made by Northumbria Police (other
public authorities).  It is my understanding that FOI request is required
to be dealt with on the merits of the requests.   For your information, I
have copied my reply of 18 July 2017  to Northumbria Police below.

 

3.  The FOIA does not define the term vexatious, but it was discussed
before the Upper Tribunal in the case of the Information Commissioner v
Devon County Council & Dransfield[2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013).

 

In that case, the Upper Tribunal concluded that the term ‘vexatious’ could
be defined as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use
of a formal procedure”. The Tribunal made clear that the decision of
whether a request is vexatious must be based on the circumstances
surrounding the request.

 

The Dransfield judgement proposed four broad issues that public
authorities should bear in mind when considering whether FOI requests are
vexatious:

* the burden of meeting the request;

* the motive of the requester;

* the value or serious purpose of the request; and

* any harassment or distress caused.

 

(Application of section 14(1) section 12; "It is important to remember
that section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself, and not the
individual who submits it. An authority cannot, therefore, refuse a
request on the grounds that the requester himself is vexatious. Similarly,
an authority cannot simply refuse a new request solely on the basis that
it has classified previous requests from the same individual as
vexatious.";
https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-wi...

 

I also refer OPCC to section 59 and 60 of  ICO advice which states; "The
requester’s past pattern of behavior may also be a relevant consideration.
For instance, if the authority’s experience of dealing with his previous
requests suggests that he won’t be satisfied with any response and will
submit numerous follow-up enquiries no matter what information is
supplied, then this evidence could strengthen any argument that responding
to the current request will impose a disproportionate burden on the
authority.

(60.) However, the context and history may equally weaken the argument
that a request is vexatious. For example, it might indicate that the
requester had a reasonable justification for their making their request
and that because of this the public authority should accept more of a
burden or detrimental impact than might otherwise be the case."

 

The Commissioner’s guidance makes clear that section 14(1) can only be
applied to the request itself, and not to the individual who submits it.
An authority cannot, therefore, refuse a request on the grounds that the
requester himself is vexatious. Similarly, an authority cannot simply
refuse a new request solely on the basis that it has classified previous
requests from the same individual as vexatious.

 

Any claim by the OPCC that this request is vexatious not only baseless but
the OPCC has not produced any evidence to show that it is.  OPCC is
publicly funded, tasked to hold the Northumbria CC, police to account on
behalf of the public.  OPCC is expected to be open and transparent. with
the public.   The public has a right to know details about complaints
against the CC. It is also in the public interest.

 

OPCC have not included any evidence (nor even any details) that would
allow it to exempt this request on the grounds, according to them, that it
is vexatious   Furthermore, OPCC have not included any evidence to show,
as they are claiming, that I, as they claim, are making request to them to
"embarrass and harass" OPCC staff (or even NP).

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Martin McGartland reply to Northumbria Police

 

Dear Northumbria Police,

 

It is very clear that you are once again covering up details about
complaints that have been made against DCC Winton Keenen and are lying to
do so by making your latest false claims against me as a result of my
exposing police corruption and cover up in my cases by DCC Winton
"CoverUp" Keenen and Northumbria Police.

 

You refer to an ICO Decision Notice and set out in the Reason for Decision
that stated “unreasonable and that the public comments made by the
complainant amounted to harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff”.
Those lies, false information were given to the ICO by you (including DCC
Winton Keenen).

 

Let us all remind ourselves of what Northumbria Police's position was for
18 years during the time that they were lying and covering up (including
by Winton Keenen) of the smear campaign against me during the time when I
was fighting for my life. When Northumbria Police lied to the press (In
Secret) by connecting my shooting to drugs, criminal gangs And more
importantly by stating that my shooting was nothing at all to do with the
IRA. Northumbria Police (including DCC "Cover-Up" Winton Keenen and
Superintendent Chris "Where is her now" Thomson) covered up that smear
campaign for 18 years. They lied and Lied and lied until my own
investigations uncovered the evidence, the "smoking gun", in the form of 3
sworn independent court witness statments that not only proved that
Northumbria Police was behind the smearing of me But also that they had
been behind the 18 year cover up. It was only then that Northumbria Police
(And DCC Keenen were forced, while kicking and screaming, into coming
clean and telling the truth. If it were not for my investigations
Northumbria Police and DCC Keenen would have continuted with thier lies,
their corruption and cover up. {The Evidence EX01 - the 3 sworn
independent Court Witness Statements:
https://www.scribd.com/document/34925451... }

 

Northumbria Police, while lying to ICO about the history of my case,
omitted most of their deeds, they concealed the corruption from the ICO.
Also, Northumbria Police did not make the ICO aware that DCC Winton Keenen
and Northumbria Police covered up my complaints that I made to the force
relating to the smearing of me, the 18 year cover up. That DCC Winton
Keenen, Northumbria Police delayed my smear complaint for 3 years and them
whitewashed it, never investigated my smear complaint. He even lied by
claiming it was a Direction and Control matter { The Evidence EX02 -
Winton Keenen Whitewash - Refer to page 23;
https://www.scribd.com/document/73581080... }

 

And that Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police failed to investigated a new
complaint that I made (when I uncovered the 3 sworn witeness statements)
in 2014. That too was delayed by a further 3 years. Then Winton Keen and
Northumbria Police applied to the IPCC to disapply the complaint But they
concealed the 3 sworn witness statements and other compelling evidence
from the IPCC. The end result was that the IPCC ordered that my smear
complaint be investigated. The IPCC, in there decision letter, pointed out
that Northumbria police had lied (inconsistencies) regarding the smearing
of me at different stages.

 

Winton Keenen (his PSD) and Northumbria Police are continuing with the
corruption by investigating my smear complaint even when they have been at
the coal-face of the corruption, the cover ups (and whitewashes) relating
to it, my case for the past 18 years. My smear complaint will result in
another Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen whitewash, even further
corruption.; Further Info regards the smearing of me by Northumbria
Police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjqphnDx...

 

No proper investigation will ever be carried out as long as Winton Keenen,
his PSD and Northumbria Police is involved with my cases. Winton Keenen
lied in emails about an apology that he knew had never been given to me.
Did Northumbria Police tell the ICO that? Of course not, butter wouldn't
melt.

 

Northumbria Police also failed to tell the ICO that Winton Keenen lied to
me about the Roger Ford review. Winton Keenen covered up the Roger Ford
review (and the findings) from me as the victim. He also deliberately
chose to ignore Roger Fords recommendations. In fact, Winton Keenen
concealed those from me as the victim. He also covered up the findings,
recommendations because of the overall cover up in my case. Winton Keenen
and Northumbria Police have been protecting not only the IRA But also the
IRA terrorists who tried to murder me. All this was concealed from the
ICO.

 

Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police concealed over information from ICO
including the important fact (further corruption) that the DNA of the
person who tried to murder me was deliberately kept off the DNA Database
for more than for more than 8 years. The too was done to protect the IRA,
the IRA terrorist who tried to murder me. I, from my own investigations,
uncovered this. This too was covered up from me as the victim by
Northumbria Police. It was only at that stage that Northumbria Police was
again forced (while kicking and screaming) into admitting to further
corruption.

 

This, and a great deal more, has been covered up, never been investigated
by Northumbria Police, Winton Keenen. Why? Because Winton Keenen (his old
bosses) were responsible for the corruption, they all played a part. I
could write a book about the corruption in my cases.

 

Winton Keenen has lied to me as the victim at every stage. Winton Keenen
and Northumbria Police, so far as I and my cases are concerned, have been
dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that they had lied, covered
up and smeared me. I have been vindicated. I have also shown, when it
concerns me, my cases, that Winton Keenen has lied time and again, has
covered up my cases (and whitewashed my complaints), have been protecting
the people, the terrorists (and the IRA) who tried to murder me.

 

Moreover, the evidence shows that had I not have pursued my case, exposed
the corruption, the lies, the cover ups that Winton Keenen and Northumbria
Police would have continued with thir cover up, the corruption in my
cases. My attempted murder case would have been brushed under the carpet
and the terrorists would continue to be protected from arrest.

 

The latest Winton Keenen, Northumbria Police lies (and corruption) and the
false claims of "harassment of Northumbria Police and its staff” by me
because, according to Team Winton of a "grievances". is nothing other than
more lies. All I have done, will continue to do, is to expose the
corruption, the abuses of power by Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police as
well as the cover ups by them in my cases and the scandalous abuse of
power.

 

The fact is that the latest Lie, False claim by Winton Keenen and
Northumbria Police against me of "harassment" is nothing more than pure
PoppyCock. More corruption, lying, giving false, incomplete information to
ICO just to keep all of the complaints made against DCC Keenen secret
(coveredup) from the public.

 

I have all the evidence I would need to backup (and prove) everything I
have ever written and said about Winton Keenen and Northumbria Police so
far as my cases are concerned. I wounder why the ICO never asked the
important question. Why has no action ever been taken against Martin
McGartland? The answer is simple. Because Winton "Coverup" Keenen and
Northumbria Police will be well aware that they would have to give
evidence and face cross-examination from me. Winton Keenen and Northumbria
Police are not that stupid.

 

I am doing a public a service by Exposing corruption. Winton Keenen, his
PSD is the one who is covering up details about complaints made against
him, why would he do that. What is he hiding.

 

These are just the latest of many dirty tricks shamefully, disgustingly,
and disgracefully employed by Winton "cover up" Keenen and Northumbria
Police against me over the years. There will be many more Uncomfortable
truths which will be exposed at a later date. Truth sounds like Hate to
those who Hate the Truth.

 

Internal Review Response

 

When applying Section 14 of the Act, a public authority can take into
account the context and history of the request, where this is relevant.
This is clearly stated in the guidance that you have referred to above.

 

In this case the history of your requests is clearly relevant when making
an assessment to take into account the other submissions you have made to
Northumbria Police as they are clearly related to your requests to the
Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner.

 

The requests you have submitted to another authority (Northumbria Police)
clearly show a pattern of behaviour that has been classified as vexatious.
That decision has been scrutinised and upheld. Your requests to the Office
of the Police & Crime Commissioner are clearly connected to your issues
with Northumbria Police and therefore can also be classed as vexatious in
nature.

 

Your correspondence (including your request for review) continues to voice
extreme dissatisfaction and makes allegations about named officers and is
indicative of the vexatious nature of your requests. You are clearly using
your correspondence via the Whatdotheyknow website as a vehicle for you to
complain and publicise your dissatisfaction. They include defamatory
remarks about Northumbria Police and its Officers. Your requests also
appear to be a “fishing expedition” for information which might be used in
your campaign. It is noted that of fifty five requests currently logged on
the Whatdotheyknow website to the OPCC, twenty two of these were submitted
by you. Additionally, requests have been submitted by others that may be
classed as working in concert with you.

 

It is accepted that a request may not be vexatious in isolation, but when
considered in the context of a long series of overlapping requests it may
form a pattern of behaviour that makes it vexatious. Your requests
submitted to this authority and others are indicative of being vexatious
in nature and your latest request can also fairly be classed as vexatious.

 

In conclusion, the response to this request has been classed as entirely
appropriate, the exemption was appropriately applied and no substantive
response was required.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of this review then it remains
open to you to refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at the
following address:

 

The Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Dean Lowery

Office of Dame Vera Baird QC

Police and Crime Commissioner for Northumbria

Ged Simmons left an annotation ()

The Information Commissioner's Decision Notice relating to this request has all the hallmarks of a 'Claire Walsh' cover-up.

Ged Simmons left an annotation ()

"....where individual officers’ behaviour is called into question, there are official channels and procedures through which this should be investigated and addressed (via the force Professional Standards Department or referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission). These referrals ensure that serious or systematic misconduct is identified and dealt with appropriately and the Commissioner is satisfied that the public interest in scrutiny of senior officers is, to a very large degree, served by these procedures."

What planet.....?

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Police watchdog (IPCC) ‘racist and corrupt’

The Met’s Olympics poster girl is suing the complaints commission, claiming it frustrates inquiries to protect accused officers

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), which investigates misconduct and racism, is riddled with corruption and discriminatory practices, according to a whistleblower.

Carol Howard, a former investigator at the police watchdog who was the Metropolitan police poster girl for the London 2012 Olympics, claims senior executives “believe their duty is not to investigate officers but to protect the reputation of the police force concerned and its senior officers in particular”.

She also says that some investigators at the watchdog secretly support the racist police officers whom they are investigating. As a result they try to “frustrate, delay, restrict and close down investigations” to protect the targets of their inquiries.

Howard, 37 who is suing the IPCC for racial discrimination and victimisation .... (The Times - LONDON, 18 November 2017) Read in Full, here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/polic...

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Northumbria Police (NP) malicious / false ‘vexatious’ claims (their Lies) are nothing new. NP have been using and abusing same by to cover up their gross misconduct – and misfeasance in public office by their Bent officers who are (and were) involved in the Martin McGartland's cases. They having been lying about ‘vexatious’ for more than 7 years, see ICO 2011 decision notice in which they found that request was NOT ‘vexatious’,
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

NP, Winton Keenen will say (and do) anything to cover up their corruption in the Martin McGartland cases.

Martin McGartland (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

25 Years of Serious CORRUPTION by Northumbria Police - from the very Top down - in the Martin McGartland cases ....
Read more:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/dufferpad/v...

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/search?content_ty...

Google: https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=h...

.............................................