Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),
I note today that a serving police officer,Hitesh Lakhani, 42 (10.09.77), produced a totally fabricated incident report whilst off duty,in a devious and corrupt attempt to see a Council worker prosecuted, which has unfortunately resulted in being prosecuted himself and, apparently, sentanced to 3 years in jail.
No doubt he will be dismissed from police service in the near future but there are aspects of the case report which are incomplete or unsatisfactory and I wish to post a FOI request to allow clarification.
http://news.met.police.uk/news/serving-o...
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/me...
The common feature of all these media reports is the lack of an identfying photograph of the convicted person and it is not acceptable, without good explanation,as to why his identity has not been revealed, especially considering the identity of offenders, including deviant police officers in other forces, are often provided to provide public reassurance and an element of shame, even if they are not actually jailed.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/black-c...

FOI Q1.When police officers themselves are arrested and taken into custody are they photographed at the time of arrest, in the same way as other offenders?End of FOI Q1.
FOI Q2.Is it a requirement that a photograph of all serving police officers is taken and kept on the police database when they commences work with the MPS and, if so, how often are their photographs required to be updated?End of FOI Q2
FOI Q3.West Midlands Police released a clear custody (he is not smiling) photograph of their perverted officer Lee Bartram, so they obviously conclude that offenders, including police officers, forfeit their right to have their images withheld as personal data in the public interest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi...
Therefore, please disclose a photograph of the corrupt officer Hitesh Lakhani and an explanation as to why his image has not been disclosed immediately subsequent to his conviction.End of FOI Q3.
Quote from the Evening Standard "Lakhani maintained his fake story for weeks, and was convicted of perverting the course of justice after a trial.“This was a baseless accusation against a hard-working man by a serving police officer”, said David Davies, from the CPS".
FOI Q4.As pc Lakhani refused to plead guilty will he be expected to serve his full sentance and will his police pension be impacted in any way? End of FOI Q4.
FOI Q5.How long was pc Lakhani employed by the MPS and how many arrests did he make during his employment?End of FOI Q5.

In retrospect it is apparent that pc Lakhani was not the best of the thin blue line, but these requests are simply to demonstrate, on this public website, how much special protection (misusing the personal data excuse) is afforded to members of the police family compared to ordinary members of the public.

Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Cyclops on behalf of Alyson Parker, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

 

Official Sensitive

     

 

 

 

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/20/012996

 

Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Information request
referenced above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Alyson Parker

Information Manager

 

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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

 

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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

 

FOI Complaint

Information Rights Unit

PO Box 313

Sidcup

DA15 0HH

[email address]

 

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Dear Cyclops on behalf of Alyson Parker,
This is an intermediate email posted for reference purposes on the whatdotheyknow website in advance of my imminent request for an independent review.Thank you for your response dated 23rd January which,unfortunately, is unsatisfactory.I appreciate that you are not responsible for the accuracy of information relayed by yourselves to complete enquiries, but you are responsible for providing valid reasons for witholding information.I have gone to the trouble of writing a request, in the public interest but, in my opinion, the response generated has been annoyingly inaccurate and subject to excessive obscurity.I shall try to keep my appeal review focussed so this intermediate email is simply to provide background information to substantiate my appeal request. My FOI Q1 has been completed by the affirmation that arrested police officers are photographed when brought into custody.My FOI Q2 has been completed by confirming that an officer only has a photograph taken when they first commence employment, for use with their warrent card and, surprisingly, there is no requirement for an updated photograph during their career.
Your response to my FOI Q3 , reasons for nondisclosure of the photograph of the corrupt officer, seems very odd and reliant upon a Refusal exemption of `already published elsewhere and resonably accessible by other means`when, I suggest, the refusal is unreasonable in that the photograph was not available on the 10th January when I posted my request, and you have told me it has "been published elsewhere" without specifying detail, and then you have provided a link to the MPS website showing the MPS release dated(Monday) 13th January at 16.19GMT when the MyLondon photo disclosure was produced Monday 13th at 10.19am, and you state the MPS Press Bureau issued details of the case on Friday 13th January 2020 with photograph released on Monday 16th January.Your response, sadly, indicates a very confused state of affairs at the Press Bureau which accordingly renders them unreliable, so I shall have to request clarification. I note that PC Lakhani fabricated his evidence on 5th September 2018, was only convicted after trial on 10th December 2019, was sentenced to 3 years on 10th January 2020 and, as of 27th January,still has not been dismissed from the force.The public find this to be indicative of special treatment afforded to members of the police family where there is no urgency to expedite justice or terminate salaries or pension.It adds insult to injury for the Press Office to delay releasing his photograph until 3 days after the sentancing when they knew full well, for at least a month previously, that their would be public interest in knowing about this vindictive policeman.
https://www.mylondon.news/news/west-lond...
Regarding FOI Q4, will he serve his full 3 year sentence,you confirm this is information not held but, for information,solicitors benhoarebell.co.uk confirm Lakhani will serve half his sentence in custody and half on license.
Regarding FOI Q5,how long had Lakhani `served`as a police officer, you have totally refused to supply any information under section 40(5A) Personal Information. I consider this refusal to be an abuse of process because pc Lakhani was not operating in a personal capacity whilst on duty and, at his trial,Judge Jonathan Davies remarked"this was wicked,prolonged and cruel conduct.Had Mr Lakhani`s evidence not been covered by CCTV this man would have been arrested and remanded in custody.He never did back down and this calls into question other cases where he has given evidence",
https://www.benhoarebell.co.uk/police-of...
I believe your refusal to disclose the officer`s period of service to be totally unreasonable in these circumstances, particularly in consideration that many other police forces disclose service details when it suits them and, as in the case of the perverted West Midlands Police Officer only identified as `officer A `, although his length of service was never mentioned during his 10 minute misconduct hearing it was freely disclosed to the media afterwards when I requested them to enquire.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bi...
There should not be differing opinions on what is `personal information`, there are many examples of where service history is not considered `personal`and the same information should be disclosable to the public without requiring media intervention.

This particular email is NOT the appeal review request, it just provides advance background to the review request before it is iminently generated.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Convicted Officer Hitesh Lakhani, Perverting Justice'.
Some background to the reason I find the response to my FOI request to be unsatisfactory have been detailed in the email posted yesterday, an intermediate response.
I require an independent review in order to clarify the opinion that the service history of a convicted officer can be restricted as `personal data`when I am of the opinion that `service history`, that is taxpayer paid employment allegedly on behalf of the Crown, is not something personal of his own volition but something they have consented to outside of their personal free time.There should not be double standards on this matter, there are examples of exceptionally deviant police officers having their careers exposed when it suits the Crown Prosecution, which sets a legal precedence, and police forces often disclose officer personal career details to explain how they have been proudly fast tracked to high office.
I appreciate that it is one of the perks of policing to be allowed to quietly take early retirement with unaffected pension, especially when facing misconduct hearings and supported by the Police Federation, but the public should be entitled to know the career history of any officers subject to misconduct hearings in order to consider if the officer may have impacted upon their lives previously, as indirectly opinionated by Judge Jonathan Davies, quote reference pc Lakhani, "He never did back down and this calls into question other cases where he has given evidence".
This failure to disclose is unacceptable, especially with the current trend to identify and prosecute individuals who have committed abuse offences during their careers as teachers or children`s home managers.Personal information should be restricted to information related to people`s personal, not employment related, lives unless in special circumstances for security reasons.

I wish also to appeal review if the MPS response to my enquiry is acceptable in terms of the release of inaccurate information concerning the issuing of the release of pc Lakhani photograph to the media.There was no photograph made available to the media at the time of my request on the day of sentencing, Friday 10th January, despite being aware of media interest following the conviction verdict the previous month, and then, according to the MPS response, the photograph was released after the event on the 16th January when, in actuality, it was apparently released on the MPS website on Monday 13th January at 16.19GMT but the MyLondon website published the photo previously at 10.19am.The MPS Press Bureau are obviously in a state of confusion, with a reluctance to release photographs in advance, but I would appreciate knowing the truth of the situation.The photo only appeared on the police website on the Monday at 16.19 GMT but the MyLondon website managed to publish it on the Monday at 10.19am, so I would appreciate the discrepancy being explained in terms of precise timings to explain how the MyLondon website accessed the photograph so early on the Monday morning when it was not published on the MPS website until the afternoon.

Sorry to be paying so much attention to detail but the police have been obliged to employ a wider range of individuals attracted by the pay and the power rather than interest in public service and protection, and if they considered possible shame of being identified and called to public account this would surely be an incentive to behave in a professional way to earn respect rather than abuse their powers and intimidate.

Thanking you in anticipation of your review.

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

Yours faithfully,

Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Cyclops on behalf of Fionna Ford, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

1 Attachment

    Official Sensitive

 

 

 

Information Rights Unit
PO Box 313

Sidcup

  DA15 0HH
United Kingdom
 
Our Ref: 01/FOI/20/013245
 
Date: 28/01/2020

 

 

 

 

Dear Dennis Fallon, 

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 01/FOI/20/013245

 

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to 01/FOI/20/012996 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 10/01/20.   

 

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
 The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

 

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

 

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity. 

 

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

 

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

 

Information Commissioner's Office 

Wycliffe House 

Water Lane 

Wilmslow 

Cheshire 

SK9 5AF 

Phone:  0303 123 1113

 

Yours sincerely, 

 

F. Ford

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

Service history is often disclosed by other police forces.Today in the West Midlands serving Police Sergeant Iftikhar Ali appeared in Court charged with various counts of corruption and misconduct, Mr James Curtis QC said the officer had joined the police force in 2003 as a constable before becoming a sergeant in 2010.There should not be different standards for disclosure in different parts of the country, there should be complete transparency to allow proper considerations.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...

Dear Cyclops on behalf of Fionna Ford,
Our Ref: 01/FOI/20/013245

My request regarding the convicted officer pc Lakhani has been posted on a public website in order to educate the general public on the standards for confidentiality of information applicable to police officers, with reasons,in comparision to other convicted offenders.I believe that all serious offenders, of any kind, should be identified and shamed for the deterrent factor.Whilst you are considering my appeal I would also like to know a related fact, namely the date when PC Lakhani was subject to a misconduct hearing and dismissed from police service as, currently, I can see no evidence that he has been dismissed and, on that basis, it seems wrong that he should still be receiving taxpayer funding towards his pension whilst in jail.The media reports say that he would face a misconduct hearing at a `later date`but I have not noticed it.You can helpfully provide this information as part of the appeal review report or, if you wish, treat it as a seperate request.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Dennis Fallon (BScHons),

Thank you for your email.

I can confirm that your request below, will be dealt with as part of your internal review with the reference number: 01/FOI/20/013245.

Kind Regards,

F. Ford | Triage Case Officer | Information Rights Unit
Strategy & Insight | Strategy & Governance | METHQ | Metropolitan Police Service
Email: [email address
Address: Information Rights Unit, PO Box 313, SIDCUP DA15 0HH

GOVERNMENT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION: OFFICIAL
Not Suitable for Publication:
Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider all information suitable for release unless there are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such.

show quoted sections

dennis fallon left an annotation ()

Today,West Mercia Police completed a misconduct hearing reference an officer who was dismissed after stealing items from a bicycle shop.They had no issue with disclosing that Det Sgt Matt Hodgson was long serving with 22 years' experience.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/mi...

Cyclops on behalf of Yvette Taylor, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 Attachments

 

Official Sensitive

     

 

 

 

Dear Mr Fallon

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 01/FOI/20/013245

 

Please see the attached in respect of your Freedom of Information request
referenced above.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Yvette Taylor

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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

 

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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

 

FOI Complaint

Information Rights Unit

PO Box 57192

London

SW6 1SF

[email address]

 

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 0303 123 1113

Dear Cyclops on behalf of Yvette Taylor,
This is just a summary of your response,followed by a few items for clarification in order to close this request.
Thank you for completing the appeal review 01/FOI/20/013245 regarding my FOI ref 01/FOI/20/012996 and advice that the MET Police response is concluded and may be referred to the ICO if necessary.
I note that you comment "From the content of your emails it appears you are seeking commentary and opinion from the MPS", also "the review does not extend to the MPS making comment on the opinions you have expressed", also "the Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information".You have misinterpreted the additional verbiage in my emails as seeking commentary but this was included to forewarn you that your responses would be visible on a public website and therefore added to provide contextual justification for comparable situations. You will no doubt be aware that you have the option to deal with queries in a positive way,as a public service, outside of the constraints of the FOI Act, but you have not taken that opportunity.I note that you comment that the weblinks I have provided show as invalid on your system due to your firewall, but they are valid and examples of service records for Welsh police officers who have been sacked,resigned or committed suicide prior to hearings can be publically seen by googling their names, namely pc Rebecca Bryant,pc Clark Joslyn, and pc Lianne Matthews which demonstrates that other forces interpret service records to be public information, which is contrary to your opinion 22 that "Justification is needed for disclosure" and,quote,"the legitimate interest in openness and transparency is being met by judicial and staff misconduct process.The Review considers that the MPS`reliance on section 40 of the Act is justified in this case as disclosure of the requested information would not be fair or lawful", and I accept that this is your opinion which sadly appears to be contrary to both the actions of other forces and the public interest, considering that the judge opinionated that the conviction "calls into question other cases where he has given evidence" but you have opinionated that further information is restricted.You have concluded your considered response so I consider this aspect CLOSED and does not require further comment but I would appreciate clarification of some aspects of your response which still remain unclear.
CLARIFICATION POINT 1.You advise that PC Lakhani`s was not published before or on the day of sentancing, despite the considerable public interest from the previous month when the verdict was announced, because " the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards had to make checks to ensure that the publication of the photograph would not prejudice any linked misconduct hearings.The photo was published as soon as this was determined".Please clarify to who, and when, did the DPS make legal checks with subsequent to the sentancing on Friday 10th January, confirm exactly when the advice was received back,and advise if, and when, the DPS sought advice on the matter in the weeks prior to sentancing. Please also clarify exactly when the Press Logs record the photograph as being released, and how the photographed was `published`,that is announced and made available to the local and national media.
CLARIFICATION POINT 2.You imply that despite pc Lakhani being judged as a totally untrustworthy person and a disgrace to the MET on 10th December 2019,and subsequently jailed for 3 years, he is still on the police payroll and receiving taxpayer supported pension contributions for the past 2 months because he has not been subject to a misconduct hearing process.Please clarify that because pc Lakhani has not yet been dismissed he is still in receipt of pay and pension contributions whilst in jail until you get around to completing the 10 minute (based on other forces data) misconduct hearing.

End of clarification points.
Thanking you in anticipation of detailing the clarification points requested, it is in the public interest to know exactly how the photograph release was delayed and if convicted officers are in receipt of pay whilst in jail when there is ongoing pleading that the police are short of funding. I shall mark this request as closed once the clarification points have been addressed.

Yours sincerely,
Dennis Fallon (BScHons)

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Fallon

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been duly noted.

With respect to the following:

Please clarify to who, and when, did the DPS make legal checks with subsequent to the sentancing on Friday 10th January, confirm exactly when the advice was received back,and advise if, and when, the DPS sought advice on the matter in the weeks prior to sentancing. Please also clarify exactly when the Press Logs record the photograph as being released, and how the photographed was `published`,that is announced and made available to the local and national media.

This is an additional request for information. If you wish for the above to be submitted as new FOIA requests, kindly advise and I will direct your email to the appropriate MPS unit.

In respect of the following:

http://scanmail.trustwave.com/?c=10916&a... imply that despite pc Lakhani being judged as a totally untrustworthy person and a disgrace to the MET on 10th December 2019,and subsequently jailed for 3 years, he is still on the police payroll and receiving taxpayer supported pension contributions for the past 2 months because he has not been subject to a misconduct hearing process.Please clarify that because pc Lakhani has not yet been dismissed he is still in receipt of pay and pension contributions whilst in jail until you get around to completing the 10 minute (based on other forces data) misconduct hearing.

The MPS has not confirmed the officer's salary status. As detailed in my response to you, the type of information you have requested (salary / termination of employment) information is protected by DPA / GDPR legislation. If you are dissatisfied with the MPS' interpretation of Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act - Personal Information, as detailed in my response, you have a right of appeal to the ICO.

Thank you

Yvette Taylor - Information Manager - Freedom of Information Team, Information Rights Unit (IRU)
STRATEGY & GOVERNANCE, MetHQ
Informal Resolution Champion
Member of Metropolitan Black Police Association (Met BPA)

Metropolitan Police Service
MetPhone 780074 | Telephone 020 7161 0074 0074 (If no reply, please E-Mail and I will make contact as soon as possible.)
E-Mail: [email address]   
Address - Information Rights Unit, PO Box 313, Sidcup DA15 OHH

Please consider the environment before printing this email
PROTECTIVELY MARKED AS OFFICIAL SENSITIVE

Recipients of this email should be aware that all communications within and to and from the Metropolitan Police Service are subject to consideration for release under the Data Protection Act, Freedom of Information Act and Environmental Information Regulations. The MPS will consider information for release unless there is are valid and proportionate public interest reasons not to, therefore, sensitive information not for public disclosure must be highlighted as such. Further advice can be obtained from the Information Rights Unit - 0207 161 3500.

show quoted sections

Dear Yvette Taylor,
Regarding my request,on behalf of the public,reference convicted Officer Hitesh Lakhani to elucidate his service record and ascertain whether the MPS Professional Standards Department had acted expeditously to protect the public purse by conducting the brief but necessary formality of dismissing PC Lakhani from the Queen`s service, I am seriously concerned that the MPS appear to be excessively secretive and inefficient.I note that the jailed officer apparently (as of 05/03/20) has still not been dismissed by way of a misconduct hearing which would only take 10 minutes to complete, and other police forces such as West Midlands Police conduct dismissals promptly and freely disclose the service history of their deviant officers without making excuses of having to hide behind the perceived constraints of the DPA/GDPR regulations.
Obviously my observations should be justified as true, hence by a simple google name search of miscreant officers show West Midlands serving Police Sergeant Iftikhar Ali appeared in Court charged with various counts of corruption and misconduct and Mr James Curtis QC said the officer had joined the police force in 2003 as a constable before becoming a sergeant in 2010. Additionally,just yesterday,West Midlands Police news stated"Sergeant Shaukat Zaman is set to appear at Birmingham Magistrates Court today (4 March 2020) accused of assaulting a woman at her home in Birmingham in March 2019. The 39-year-old − who worked as a custody sergeant in Perry Barr − was suspended in April 2019 while investigations were carried out. The officer − who has worked with the force for 17 years − has been charged with one count of sexual assault and another of assault by penetration − he remains suspended from work".
The ongoing issue is that West Midlands Police, not historically famous for its honesty, seems to be operating to a higher standard of expected transparency which does not show the MPS in a good light.Thank you for the offer to forward my followup clarification as a new request but, for the sake of clarity on this public website,I shall mark this request as `closed by refusal`and shall post a new request requesting the clarifications separately.
Thank you for your help, this request is now closed.
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Fallon (BScHons)