Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

six months ago, in response to a FoI request in December 2009(*), you stated that "you may wish to note that the introduction of Complex Case Time Recording was introduced on 9 November 2009 for Special Crime Divisions (SCD). This exercise will record the time each prosecutor, caseworker and administrator spends on each case in SCD".

Please disclose to me monthly totals for the BT/Phorm case, using the data held in the Complex Case Time Recording system,

- total number of prosecutors working on the case
- total number of caseworkers working on the case
- total number of administrators working working on the case
- total time spent on the case by prosecutors
- total time spent on the case by caseworkers
- total time spent on the case by administrators
- details of other costs/expenses on the case
- the management information summary reports generated by the CCTR system

...for each month since November 2009.

Please could you also disclose to me any correspondence between the CPS and the company "Dartley Holdings" (who are reportedly subject to a $862m money laundering investigation by Ministério Público de São Paulo in Brazil, and US authorities**).

Please could you also disclose to me any correspondence between the CPS Special Casework Division and the Overseas Companies section of Companies House, concerning the failure of the Delaware company Phorm UK Inc to file accounts or details of directors for the last 3 years.

Please could you disclose to me any correspondence between the CPS and Kent Ertugrul (CEO of Phorm) concerning his 'beneficial interest' in the business of "Dartley Holdings", and/or failure to file accounts & details of directors***.

Please could you disclose any correspondence between Rene Barclay and Keir Starmer concerning the 580 days which have elapsed since Alex Hanff first sought permission to begin a private prosecution****

Yours faithfully,

regards
P John.

*http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ph...
**http://www.oimparcial.com.br/noticias.ph...
***http://www.phorm.com/assets/reports/Noti...
****https://nodpi.org/wp-content/uploads/sna...

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

concerning my Freedom of Information request (see link below *).

As stated in your acknowledgement, "the deadline for [this request] is 15 June. However, we will endeavour to respond sooner".

Today is 16 June 2010, and I regret I have not received your reply. By law, the CPS should have responded promptly and not later than 14 June 2010.

At the time of writing, 610 days have passed since you were first asked to prosecute the criminals responsible for the BT/Phorm mass surveillance/industrial espionage scam (**).

In that time, you've offered no explanation for the delay, or actions of the CPS. I believe the public are entitled to an account for the apparent attempt to delay (or even obstruct) a fair prosecution.

Keir Starmer said last year; "The existence of a strong, effective and publicly respected prosecuting service is an absolute requirement of a fair criminal justice system based on the rule of law... My vision is of a transparent, contemporary CPS which engages in an open and honest way with the communities is serves".

Please fulfil Mr. Starmer's commitment to transparency and accountability. Answer this FoI request, and prosecute the criminals responsible for the BT/Phorm affair.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

* http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

** https://www.dephormation.org.uk/snails/c...

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

concerning the FoI request below;
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Please can I draw your attention to section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (*)

"a public authority must comply with section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day following the date of receipt".

You are presently breaking the law.

Which - to me and I'm sure many others - seems rather an odd place for the UK's supposedly independent prosecution service to be.

Particularly if you share Keir Starmers vision that the CPS should be "inspiring the confidence of the communities we serve".

I would have considerably greater confidence in the integrity of the CPS if you would comply with the letter and spirit of the law, and provide an transparent account for the effort expended on the case against BT/Phorm.

Six HUNDRED and twelve days elapsed as I write.

Yours faithfully,

P. John

(*)http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukp...

Dear Freedom of Information Unit/J Alham

many thanks for your reply.

I note your explanation concerning the time expended, and will consider how best to obtain the required information from Complex Casework Unit (CCU) of CPS London.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution Service's handling of my FOI request 'Complex Case Time Recording, BT, Phorm'.

Please could I ask your review to consider the reasons for the delay responding to my request, and the failure of the CPS to meet the legal deadline for a response.

Concerning your decision to withhold management information summary reports generated by the CCTR citing a Scottish ruling, involving the Scottish Information Commissioner, concerning the Freedom of Information Scotland Act... the juridiction of the Scottish Courts system, the remit of the Scottish Information Commissioner, and the Freedom of Information Scotland Act does not extend to Ludgate Hill London... nor to my home in Western England.

The opinion of a Scottish Court concerning a matter involving the Scottish Information Commissioner under Scottish Legislation, involving Scottish residents is completely irrelevant to my request or indeed to your deficient response.

Requests to other bodies, including the Home Office, ICO, National Audit Office, BIS, and other Government departments routinely result in requested documents being disclosed without hesitation... I see no reason why information in documentary form should withheld in the response of the CPS.

Guidance published by the ICO in England states "you have a right to information, however it is recorded". I would like to see the information contained in those documents please.

I also asked you to disclose correspondence between Keir Starmer and Rene Barclay concerning the glacial progress of the case. I simply do not consider it credible that no such documentation exists. Particularly so given the time that has elapsed since the case was first placed in CPS hands, the purported complexity of the matter, the effort you claim has been expended on the case, Mr Barclay's responsibility for the matter, and the international controversy now swirling around BT/Phorm unpunished crimes (even including European Commission threats of infraction).

Please reconsider whether such documentation exists. Further, please disclose to me any correspondence between Mr Starmer and the CPS London concerning the BT/Phorm case since 2008.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Ms Ronchetti,

thank you for your note. I look forward to receiving the information requested from you shortly.

You might be as interested as I was to hear Keir Starmer saying "I don't think you can hold anyone to account if you don't know what they are doing". (*)

Please help me understand what the CPS are doing, so I can hold CPS to account for 620 days of silence, dissembling, and inaction.

The criminals responsible for the BT/Phorm scandal, and associated corruption, should be in gaol.

Yours sincerely,

P. John

(*) http://www.cps.gov.uk/movies/director_CQ...

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution Service's handling of my FOI request 'Complex Case Time Recording, BT, Phorm'.

In Mr. Willman's response dated 15 July 2010 (ref: 2361) he states;

"The majority of the correspondence between the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and CPS London regarding the BT/Phorm matter consists of the DPP passing correspondence, received from interested parties, to CPS London to respond to. The items of correspondence were passed to CPS London with a covering note requesting that they reply to them. Other correspondence is from CPS London to the DPP simply enclosing a copy of their response. On some occasions notes on the case were included; these notes are exempt under s30(1)(c) of the Freedom of Information Act"

None of the correspondence items requested were attached, yet only some are exempt from disclosure.

In those few instances where information is considered exempt, you are entitled to redact the information.

The CPS are not entitled to withhold the remainder of that information. ICO guidance for public authorities states that:- (*)

"You should not:
• provide the requester with the information you think they want rather than what the request asks for;"

I asked you

- Please disclose to me ANY CORRESPONDENCE between Mr Starmer and CPS London concerning the BT/Phorm case since 2008.

In your response you acknowledge that such correspondence items exist. Further you acknowledge that only some of those correspondence items are exempt from disclosure. Yet you have disclosed none of that correspondence, despite the terms of my request.

Please DO NOT make assumptions about my interest in, or the relevance of ,the content of those correspondence items. Disclose correspondence items between the DPP and CPS London concerning the BT/Phorm case since 2008 (redacted where necessary) immediately.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...

Yours faithfully,

P. John

(*) http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

please would you be so kind as to acknowledge receipt of my request for an internal review.

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

Yours faithfully,

P. John

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

for one final time of asking before a complaint to the Information Commissioner, please would you be so kind as to courteously acknowledge receipt of my request for an internal review on 17 July 2010?

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

I asked you;

- Please disclose to me ANY CORRESPONDENCE between Mr Starmer and CPS London concerning the BT/Phorm case since 2008.

You acknowledged that relevant correspondence items exists, asserted that some but not all was exempt from disclosure, and yet you disclosed nothing.

In a recent press release Graham Smith, Deputy Information Commissioner, said: “The FOIA gives individuals important rights to access information held by public authorities and despite the current strain on resources all public authorities must remember their responsibilities under the Act. This Enforcement Notice serves as a strong signal to all public authorities that failure to respond is unacceptable."

Noting that failure to respond to FoI requests is 'unacceptable', please acknowledge my request for an Internal Review promptly, else I will write a letter of complaint directly to Mr Smith highlighting your failure to comply with the law at every stage of my request.

And naturally... I would be most grateful if you would disclose the information I have requested without further delay. To repeat DO NOT make assumptions about my interest in, or the relevance of, the content of those Correspondence items.

Disclose correspondence items between the DPP and CPS London concerning the BT/Phorm case since 2008 (redacted where necessary) immediately.

Yours faithfully,

P. John