Costs associated with Judicial Reviews
Dear Sir or Madam,
I ask to be provided, for the calendar years of 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 (to date):
1. The number of Judicial Reviews in which the IPCC has been involved i.e. how many cases for the above calendar years have been presented to a Judicial Review that has concluded
2. the number of the cases at ‘1’ above that have resulted in the Judicial Review finding against the IPCC i.e. how many cases have the IPCC ‘lost’
3. The costs to the public purse of ‘2’ i.e. the cost of the IPCC’s defence and the claimant’s costs (please provide these as separate figures, per case and the sum paid to the claimant, by case.
4. with regard to those cases the IPCC ‘won’ at Judicial Review (likely to be ‘1’ above minus ‘2’ above), the amounts awarded by the Court to the IPCC i.e. the costs awarded to the IPCC against the claimant
5. with regard to those cases the IPCC ‘won’ at Judicial Review the number of cases in which the Court did not award costs to the IPCC against the claimant
6. with regard to ‘4’ above, the sum the IPCC has to date recovered from claimants
Yours faithfully,
P Swift
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews. you have failed to provide the response in accordance with the Act i.e. you are in breach. You have also failed to provide an explanation or request an extension. Please consider this submission a complaint.
Yours faithfully,
P Swift
P Swift left an annotation ()
It is odd that the organisation ‘policing the police’ appear to have little concern (understanding?) of the law. I have every reason to question their professionalism. One day they’ll honour my subject access request too!
Arthur Peasgill left an annotation ()
The problem for the IPCC is the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the DPA 1998 subject access procedures. The IPCC cannot now side with the police on an almost absolute basis, as they always do, and get away with it. That is probably why they now claim that their FOI team is inundated with requests. I wonder what proportion of the requests are from aggrieved complainants as opposed to thoroughly pleased police. Probably about 99.999% to 0.0001%. The fact is that the IPCC are incapable of change and don't realise that with transparency regimes such as FOIA 2000 and DPA 1998 they will be caught out. It appears, in fact, that they aren't even bothered. The IPCC since 2004 has actually assisted the police in worsening standards rather than achieving their core aim of improving the complaint process and standards. As with the highly discredited PCA we're stuck with a totally biased and unfit for purpose police complaint body.
P Swift left an annotation ()
You will not find me arguing with this.
... and do not trouble to criticise their own staff. If there's one thing they are better at than supporting police failings it is dismissing issues that highlight individual staff incompetence, short-sightedness and contradictory or illogical decisions
www.ipccc.co.uk
Paul left an annotation ()
What's taking them so long? Come on IPCC answer the questions?
For the record the IPCC is a sham, a front and an affront to justice.
I really do wonder how the individual investigators reconcile their actions with their conscience.
Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,
Please advise the present position with regard to this request
Yours faithfully,
P Swift
Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Independent Police Complaints Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Costs associated with Judicial Reviews'.
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 Swift
Dear Mr Swift,
Thank you for your e-mail dated 22 October 2009, I would like to apologise
for the delay in dealing with your request. This is the result of the
large number of requests for information received by the IPCC in recent
months which has resulted in a significant backlog of work. In addition,
many of the requests we have received have taken some time to complete due
to the amount and complexity of information requested in individual
cases.
I attach for your review the IPCC's formal response to your request
about the costs associated with Judicial Reviews.
Once again, I am sorry for the delay and for any inconvenience caused.
Yours sincerely,
Vangie
Ms Vangie Parker
Freedom of Information Officer
independent police complaints commission
90 High Holborn, London, WC1V 6BH
Tel: 0207 166 3117
Fax: 0207 404 0430
E mail for IPCC FOI Unit: [IPCC request email]
Paul left an annotation ()
What an utter joke, you have waited 4 months for a reply (that should of taken just 20 days, by law) and then they hit you with the costs to retrieve the information would be too much!
I love the bit about the IPCC don't know how many Judicial reviews they have been involved with prior to Feb 2009!!!! They really are a shameless bunch.
Mr Swift, please refer this matter to the Information Commissionaire, they cannot and will not get away with such lame excuse.
Too costly to provide simple financial information, they should have systems inplace to ensure this information is readily available. An utter joke.
Anyway, i'm firing in a request to see all 158 of the invoices Ms Parker has referred too, I'll spend the 10 mins running through each invoice and save her the trouble!!!
Paul left an annotation ()
Just to let anyone following this request, or indeed Mr Swift, I have made a connected request at the following location
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ju...
I have also requested the costings for the 1st 20 case files referred to in this FOI request.
I suggest other users request the other items in sets of 20 and post links here.
Paul
P Swift left an annotation ()
Ah, the incompetent police complaints club. Consistency and professionalism should not be expected from the outfit that plays at investigation. I understand that on the 23rd February 2010 MPs on the Home Affairs committee held a one-off session to investigate how effective the IPCC is. I assume their findings will be in the public domain.
Paul, thank you for this and your interest. I shall today place the matter with the ICO via casework[@]ico.gsi.gov.uk.
I shall return to the IPCC and ask for the 2nd batch of 20 case files referred to in this FOI request. I have also sent PM’s to those who have annotated out whatdotheyknow requests I have made asking that they consider making a request for the subsequent set of case files and annotate your entry accordingly at:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ju...
regards
P Swift
Dear Vangie Parker,
with regard to your response in respect of this request, please provide me the costings for the 1st 20 case files referred to in this FOI request.
Please ensure the information is provided in 20 days.
In the meantime, I shall complain to the ICO as you appear incapable of putting your own house in order and acting in accordance with our laws.
Yours sincerely,
P Swift
Dear Vangie Parker,
regarding the above request, my apologies, I am requesting the SECOND batch of 20 case files.
Yours sincerely,
P Swift
P Swift left an annotation ()
The IPCC's repsonse (above) is as follows:
Our Ref : 1002058
8th March 2009
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx
Dear Mr Swift,
Re: Your request
Thank you for your email dated 25th February 2010 in which you make a request for
information which I now confirm receipt of.
I would like to inform you that there will be a delay in responding to your request.
The reason for this delay is because the IPCC has over recent months seen an increase
in the number of information requests it receives and this has in effect caused a
delay in responding to requests.
I would like to assure you that your request is being processed and once a decision
has been finalised you will be contacted. I would like to apologies for the delay and
hope that this does not cause you any inconvenience.
Yours sincerely
Athena Cass
Freedom of Information Team
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Dear Athena Cass,
I anticipate receiving the data in 20 days i.e. I anticipate you complying with our legislation.
Yours sincerely,
P Swift
Paul left an annotation ()
Dear P Swift,
Check out the HOME affairs committee report you were referring;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...
Interesting....
<<Swift 1002058 - decision ltr Reg 5.pdf>> <<Reported case list.pdf>>
Dear Mr Swift,
Please find attached to this e-mail my response to your request of 25th
February 2010 (as below) together with the list referred to in the
letter.
Philip Johnston
IPCC
Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Independent Police Complaints Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Costs associated with Judicial Reviews'.
you failed to provide the data within the period allowed by legislation i.e. you are in breach of the law.
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 Swift
Please find attached Request for review of the IPCC's decision under the
Freedom of information Act 2000.
Many thanks
Katy Barrows
Business Support Officer
Independent Police Complaints Commission
90 High Holborn
London
WC1V 6BH
Tel: 020 71663171
Email: [email address]
alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
The IPPC are a joke and the lame excuses they have used in response to Mr Swifts FOI request beggars belief.
I wouldn't hold your breath either for the FOI to overturn this section 12 costs decision because they are tarred with the same brush.
The IPPC are wrong to claim section 12 COSTS because all their data is or SHOULD be electronically.
The IPPC have recently refused my complaint against Devon &Cornwall Police as being an "ABUSE OF THE COMPLAINTS SERVICE".
I believe V strongly in the old adage of IF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT SEEN TO BE WORKING , THEN IN PROBABILITY ,IT AINT WORKING.
The IPCC need a wakeupcall.
alan m dransfield (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
The IPPC are a joke and the lame excuses they have used in response to Mr Swifts FOI request beggars belief.
I wouldn't hold your breath either for the FOI to overturn this section 12 costs decision because they are tarred with the same brush.
The IPPC are wrong to claim section 12 COSTS because all their data is or SHOULD be electronically.
The IPPC have recently refused my complaint against Devon &Cornwall Police as being an "ABUSE OF THE COMPLAINTS SERVICE".
I believe V strongly in the old adage of IF TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IS NOT SEEN TO BE WORKING , THEN IN PROBABILITY ,IT AINT WORKING.
The IPCC need a wakeupcall.
Tony Wise left an annotation ()
All of us who have been let down by the IPCC should sign the e-petition at the link below. There must be 100,000 persons, families and friends who have been let down by this sham of an independent organisation.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petition...
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.
Donate Now
Mr Andrews left an annotation ()
I too would be interested in this answer! Is the Independent shy? or hiding information?
I think the later, as with many difficult queries on here they ignore them.
I;m beginning to wonder whether they are really the Independent Police Coverup Commission.... certainly looks like it on recent performance.
Come on IPCC, answer the questions.