Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please provide the itemised costs (salary, expenses, benefits, taxes, legal expenses, insurance premiums and other costs) paid out in respect of all office holders of chief executive to the Commissioner during the 2016/2017 financial year. This should include costs in respect substantive, interim, acting, temporary post holders.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please pass this on to an officer who is able to conducts Freedom of Information reviews and, in so doing, is suitably qualified to comply with ALL the qualifications and requirements of the ICO Guidance and College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice.

https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...

and

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

I am writing to request an internal review of North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner's handling of my FOI request 'Cost of chief executives'. The grounds for complaint are:

1. Relying on a Section 21 exemption is, in my submission, a confusing red herring, is deliberately obstructive and, on its face, a continuation of the course of conduct of harassment in which the data controller and some of her staff have engaged themselves for over a year now.

2. I am an investigative journalist well familiar with the websites of policing bodies within my area of operation. To finalise a request that largely comprises web-links to those sites is, in my submission, also calculatingly insulting and designed to vex, annoy and harass.

3. The quality of the data controller’s analysis of the request falls below the required standard: The request sought the sum of itemised COSTS of the office holders NOT the published salaries. To establish the costs, it is necessary for the data controller to disclose if any or all of the post holders were paid that salary, for any or all of the period cited. Without that information what is provided by way of a response is, in effect, a nullity.

4. The scope of any search for the information requested - and the rigour and efficiency with which it was conducted falls below the required standard: Deliberately, in my submission. There is, for example, no detail provided concerning the substantive post holder, Ms Joanna Carter. She was last known to be working as the PCC’s chief executive in January, 2015. Information is in the public domain that she was not working for the data controller in March, 2016 and not likely to return for some time. Without disclosure of the salary paid to Ms Carter during absence from her post – and whilst her role has been variously filled by Messrs Dennis and Sampson – then the finalisation of the request is, setting aside the other inherent flaws, palpably non-compliant

5. I return the old chestnut of dealing with information requests PROMPTLY. This is an extract from the Act:
"10. Time for compliance with request.
(1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3), 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".
The key word here is PROMPTLY. The 20 working day limit is very much a backstop. Not the first day you start thinking about a response.
In recent civil proceedings concerning data and information breaches, in which I succeeded in obtaining damages and costs against the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire, District Judge Heels in Huddersfield County Court made a finding concerning "promptly", citing the well known legal authority of Brown LJ in Regency Rolls Ltd v Carnall [2000] EWCA Civ 379. A data controller is required to act with 'all due celerity' in order to comply with Section 10.
The circumstances of the instant request would not persuade any independent reviewer that you have complied with the due celerity requirement.
The information requested is straightforward and seeks disclosure of materials that should be readily to hand in minutes, not weeks. If not, there is something seriously defective within the record-keeping and data retrieval systems of the data controller.
In making this complaint it is acknowledged that obtaining a response within 19 working days is vastly preferable to having to persuade the Information Commissioner to issue the data controller with an enforcement notice as happened in this particular request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/o...

6. Finally, the more general point is made that, even if there was material on the NYPCC/NYP/COPCC websites that did answer my request, it would not necessarily follow that the material was reasonably accessible to the wider world, so as to allow the data controller to rely on section 21. Further, I am not at all sure that, in a case where a data controller is asked for a very specific piece of information which it holds, it would be legitimate for that public authority to say to the requester that the information is somewhere to be found on a large website like that of the data controller’s, or quite incredibly, the website of another data controller altogether, even if the requester is someone as well informed as I have, in the past, rightly or wrongly, claimed to be.

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

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear Civil Disclosure,

In view of the legitimate and, by now, well rehearsed concerns over how other internal review requests have been finalised by the data controller (a police and crime commissioner no less), two fairly obvious grounds of complaint have been deliberately withheld.

A fair-minded, competent and independent reviewer should readily pick these up and deal with them. One is a breach of APP, the other concerns matters in the request finalisation relating to taxes and contributions.

If he/she does not identify these then it can be fairly concluded that a proper review has not taken place. Those points will then be added to the, seemingly, inevitable complaint to the Information Commissioner.

It is most unfortunate that such mechanisms have to be deployed to prove a point but it has to be placed in the context that the data controller has little, or no, regard for her statutory obligations. Either under the Act, or in a wider sense.

Finally, I note that the post on this WDTK thread earlier today has come from 'North Yorkshire Police'. The data controller in the instant request is the 'Police and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire and York'. Whilst I accept that the two share joint corporate services, this 'crossover' of information, and data, causes additional time and expense (and confusion) to requester(s) when dealing with court and tribunal proceedings. A point recognised by District Judge Heels at the final hearing of the county court claim in which I succeeded against the Commissioner earlier this year. The devil, as they say, is in the detail.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear Civil Disclosure,

I refer to the post made on this thread by Miss Malone on 8th June, 2017.

The following points are made by way of response:

1. Miss Malone's post, arguably, discloses personal data to the world. The data controller having appeared to commit such a breach, I will provide the readership of WhatDoTheyKnow with essential background, and an explanation, as to my 'reluctance to correspond' with Miss Malone.

2. For the avoidance of doubt, I will NOT correspond with Miss Malone, or have any other direct dealings with her. It is submitted, with some force, that she is central (either as a stalking horse or otherwise) in the long-running campaign by the data controller to vex, annoy and harass me at almost every opportunity. In those circumstances, I am perfectly entitled to exercise both my convention rights at Article 8 and, if it becomes, necessary, such civil action as deemed expedient.

3. The fragility, or inadequacy, of an internal department of a police commissioner's office is, in my submission, unlikely to be viewed by any court as good and sufficient grounds to subjugate my human rights, or resist an application, or claim, for legal remedy.

4. Miss Malone does not satisfy either of the conditions I set out, very clearly, at the head of my internal review request. They are repeated here for clarity:

"Please pass this on to an officer who is able to conducts Freedom of Information reviews and, in so doing, is suitably qualified to comply with ALL the qualifications and requirements of the ICO Guidance and College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice.

https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/p...

and

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

5. I require the data controller, for the benefit of the wider world, to disclose the names, on this thread, of those in 'Senior Management' with whom Miss Malone has discussed the issue of continuing to contact me. The 'Senior Management' chain of command is not difficult to work out from information in the public domain. Miss Malone reports to Mrs Jane Wintermeyer, Head of Joint Corporate Services. She in turn, reports to Fraser Sampson, Acting Chief Executive. Whom, in turn, reports to the data controller.

6. A copy of the rationale supporting the decision, for Miss Malone to carry on contacting me, is also required to be posted, for the benefit of the wider world, on this thread. Particularly, measured against the matters set out at para 4 above and the previous complaints I have made concerning Miss Malone. There is significant public interest in such matters being published. In so doing, it would also meet the data controller's oft published priorities of 'putting victims first' and 'openness and transparency'.

7. If you deem the information requested at 5. and 6. to be personal data, then please treat them as a data subject access request under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act, 1998, to which I would add: Copies of all emails (internal and external); meeting notes; briefing notes; entries in logs, day books, notebooks and the like concerning this decision making process and the complaints I have made against Miss Malone.

8. Further, and in any event, I have reliable information to hand that Miss Malone was away from the office from 9th June - and will be away until after the due date for finalisation of the internal review request. That would tend to go to the evidence that the principal purpose for Miss Malone contacting me, in the evening of 8th June, would be to continue the data controller's course of conduct of harassment against me.

9. The Law Society database shows that the data controller employs five other solicitors (she actually employ six as the name of Fraser Sampson is, inexplicably, missing from the list). I have included a relevant weblink for the benefit of the wider world. This would also tend to go to the evidence that, with so many alternative solicitors available to the data controller to finalise what is a relatively straightforward internal review, requiring no specialist knowledge of the Act, she is determined to continue the course of conduct of harassment against me.
http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/orga...

10. Given the previous information request / internal review/litigation history between Miss Malone and myself; no fair-minded, independent reviewer, properly availed of all relevant the facts, could conclude that Miss Malone is either (i) suitably conversant with the Act, or (ii) understands her ethical obligations as an officer of the court, or (ii) capable of an impartial finalisation where I am involved.

11. Finally, and in any event, I just do not understand the question that Miss Malone has asked:

"I would be grateful if you could confirm whether you are seeking costs incurred by the Police and Crime Commissioner only or whether you also seek costs that may have been incurred by the relevant Chief Executive, including their own tax payments?"

In the circumstances, I continue to rely on the information request, and internal review request, which, in my submission, are sufficiently clear for a compliant finalisation to be made on, or before, the 20th working day after the internal review request was made (26th May, 2017). The nonsensical nature of the question would, yet again, tend to go to the evidence that the principal purpose for Miss Malone contacting me was to vex, annoy or harass.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

There has been no acknowledgement, or substantive response, provided to the post I made on this thread on 12th June, 2017 and sent, I am given to understand, by WhatDoTheyKnow, to the Civil Disclosure Unit (CDU) email address on that date.

As a result, the following matters are now triggered and I am addressing these issues to you directly, rather than to the CDU. How you deal with them is, of course, a matter entirely for your own judgement:

1. The internal review request remains unfinalised beyond the 20 working day period stipulated by the College of Policing in their Authorised Professional Practice (APP) . That automatically engages a breach of the Code of Ethics under Neglect of Duty. (It should be noted that the requirement under APP is to respond PROMPTLY; the 20 working days limit is to be regarded very much as a backstop).

2. The failure to respond to my posting of 12th June, 2017 at all also engages a prima face breach of the Code under Respect and Courtesy.

3. The repeated and manifest failure of the Commissioner to comply both with the Act and the Code, without any cogent explanations, may also engage a breach under Disreputable Conduct.

4. You are invited to record these complaints against the officer heading up the Civil Disclosure Unit and/or the Head of Joint Corporate Services. As contractors to the police force, employees of the Police Commissioner, who work in those units, are captured both by the Code and by the Standards of Professional Behaviour.

5. It is further submitted that the failure to respond appropriately to the internal review request is a continuation of the long-running course of conduct by the Commissioner, and a number of her employees, to vex, annoy and harass at every possible opportunity. This may also engage a breach under Disreputable Conduct.

6. If the evidence supporting the complaints is not appropriately considered (available on this and other WhatDoTheyKnow threads concerning the Commissioner and myself) and a recording decision made, within the statutory ten working day period, then the matters will be referred to the IPCC as a non-recording appeal.

7. Such decisions - and all other communications concerning these matters - should be made via postings on this thread.

8. I am informed by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) that failure by a public authority to finalise an internal review request within the 20 working day period (as stipulated in her own Guidance) does not give a requester the right to complain under Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

9. The only available relief and/or remedy, in the instant matter, is via APP and the Code of Ethics in which it is embedded. It is noted that every communication from the Comissioner's office (and the CDU) carries the strapline 'COMMITTED TO THE CODE OF ETHICS'. That, of itself, may disclose a further breach of the Code under Honesty and Integrity. The Commissioner, and her staff, repeatedly make that pledge without the slightest intention of being bound by it.

10. The ICO has, however, been apprised of the latest failure as part of the monitoring process to which the Commissioner (and the chief constable) is presently subjected by the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear Civil Disclosure,

A complaint was submitted to the Information Commissioner's Office on 26th July, 2017. It was requested that the matter be triaged as urgent, given the other complaints against the Commissioner that are in varying stages of resolution.

The complaint will, of course, require to be updated in the light of your internal review finalisation, but that will be dealt with as part of their usual investigation process.

The breach of my article 10 convention rights, as a card-carrying journalist, by way of Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights [2016] (18030/11) will be drawn to the ICO's attention.

They will no doubt be in touch with the PCC's office in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Having subsequently secured full disclosure, via the Local Audit and Accountability Act, I have notified the Information Commissioner that the complaint case relating to this request can now be closed.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com