Crime investigation following allegations relating to and including Privy Council Appeal No 70 of 19977

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,
I would be obliged for a record of the investigating Officers notes/log etc following telephone conversations and emails (from Gibraltar) regarding PC Appeal No 70 of 1997 and allegations of perverting the course of justice and perjury. Also of document/s relating to why the investigation was stopped

Yours faithfully,
D A Schiller

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

From: Kevin Simmons
Policy Support Team - Freedom of Information

To: David Schiller

Good Morning Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your request.

To assist in answering your request, could you please the following details:

1.Which Metropolitan Police investigation does your request the refer to?
2.The date of this investigation?
3.Which branch of the Metropolitan Police had the allegation of perverting the course of justice and perjury made against them?

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Simmons,

Thank you for your response:-
1. There was only a preliminary investigation, carried out by a DS (now retired) whose faxes carried the heading ‘Specialist Operations, Organised Crime Group, New Scotland Yard’. The first contact I had from the Met was Nov 1998 by fax which carries the number 004A 171 230 3282 The ‘investigation’ was later stopped and filed as ‘No Crime’by John Stevens The investigating Officer was not authorised to travel to Gibraltar to investigate (although the CPS had confirmed jurisdiction did lie with the Met) and an offer by the writer to travel to London to make a Statement and provide evidence was declined.
2. The date was late 1998 to early 1999
3. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, initially John Stevens, is accused of perverting/conspiring to pervert Justice, resulting from his act in stopping the criminal investigation and that is the limit of any accusation against the Met. Perjury and other charges are alleged against Foreign Office/ government personnel in London and Gibraltar and those Privy Councillors who ‘heard’ PC Appeal No 70 of 1997

Sincerely, David Schiller

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Schiller

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008040004511
I write in connection with your request for information dated which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14th April 2008. I
note you seek access to the following information:

* I would be obliged for a record of the investigating Officers
notes/log etc following telephone conversations and emails (from
Gibraltar) regarding PC Appeal No 70 of 1997 and allegations of
perverting the course of justice and perjury.
* Also of document/s relating to why the investigation was stopped.

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference
to a third party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to
achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision
of the information you request. If this is the case you will be
informed and the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we
receive payment from you. If you choose not to make payment then your
request will remain unanswered.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right
of complaint.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest
in the MPS.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact Kevin Simmons on telephone number 020 7161 3631
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Simmons
Policy and Support Officer
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Schiller

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2008040004511
I write in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14 April 2008. I
note you seek access to the following information:

· I would be obliged for a record of the investigating Officers
notes/log etc following telephone conversations and emails (from
Gibraltar) regarding PC Appeal No 70 of 1997 and allegations of
perverting the course of justice and perjury. Also of document/s
relating to why the investigation was stopped.

This is to inform you that I cannot identify any specific records /
documents that will satisfy your request based on the details you have
provided. To enable the MPS to meet your request could you please provide
this office with further information. I provide some guidance that may
assist you more clearly describe the information you require:

After receiving the above request and your clarification, it is still very
difficult to understand what your are requesting under Freedom of
Information. Could you please clarify your request.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
23rd July 2008, I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this
request and will treat it as withdrawn.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and
the 20 working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment
from you. If you chose not to make a payment then your request will
remain unanswered.

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in
the MPS and look forward to your response.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Kevin Simmons on telephone number 020 7161 3631 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

Kevin Simmons
Policy and Support Officer
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Kevin Simmons
Policy and Support OfficerSW6 1SF

Dear Mr Simmons

Thank you for your contact from which I note you are unable to identify any specific records or documents and in the circumstances it may be helpful if I give a brief explanation of what may be an unusual case:-

In 1998 a Privy Council 'judicial committee', chaired by Lord Irvine (LC), heard an appeal against a judgement of the Court of Appeal for Gibraltar and in recommending it be dismissed relied on fresh affidavit evidence included as a part of the Respondents case to the effect that several Governors of Gibraltar had lied

The 'evidence', which on it's own face is false, ought not have been allowed and either the five 'Law Lords' are incompetent or they conspired to defeat justice or both

The allegation is they Conspired to Defeat Justice

Private criminal prosecutions in Gibraltar against the alleged Deponents of the Affidavits were 'taken over and discontinued' by the A-G resulting in an application for a Voluntary Bill of Indictment to issue against him which remains un-processed by the Supreme court The A-G is a joint Respondent to the action and suborned the evidence

Because the conspiracy had taken place in London the matter was reported to the Met to investigate. Initial contact was by telephone and fax outlining the case with fuller details to be given after preliminary enquiries and jurisdiction had been confirmed

The CPS in London were consulted but because the A-G was an ex-employee they referred it to another office who confirmed jurisdiction would lie with the Met

The DS (investigating officer) asked for and was given details of the whereabouts of an ex- Governors Liaison Officers who had left Gibraltar and worked in London and information given by him confirmed some of the allegations

The DS was refused permission to travel to Gibraltar to continue the investigation and upon government ministers/personnel becoming aware of the investigation it was stopped and filed as 'No Crime': thus John Stevens was added to those accused of perverting justice

An offer by the writer to travel to London, make a Statement and provide evidence was declined

Much correspondence from the writer to the Commissioner and the CPS/DPP is on record, mostly without response and there must be documentation etc between the Met and/or government departments and the office of the DPP/CPS, Attorney General (Goldsmith) etc etc

You will appreciate this is but a very small part of the total case which involves numerous legal proceedings over many years and includes the PSNI telling the Met there is merit in the case and there should be a proper investigation, independent Solicitors telling the CPS the same, Counsel giving Opinion there is Prima Facie evidence of Perjury, an Independent UK Solicitor filing an Application for a Voluntary Bill of Indictment to issue against the Attorney-General for Gibraltar and totally perverse behaviour by the FCO

I have supplied you with the date and reference numbers of the fax in 1998 from which all other details ought to be traceable

I have not thought it appropriate to name the individual police officer

If there is anything specific you require I can be contacted by email or telephone

Given the nature of the case and it's implications it may well be that some documentation may be difficult or impossible to find and if that is the case, although it may not be in accordance with FOI legislation it will, nonetheless, be important and useful information

So far as the information I require under the FOI Act I am sure you will appreciate that it includes all the documentation and information held by the Metropolitan Police that the law requires to be disclosed

Sincerely, David Schiller

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

From: Kevin Simmons
Policy Support Team - Freedom of Information

To: Mr David A Schiller

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your message.

Although you recount a certain event that happened in the late 1990's, for the purposes of trying to comply with your request under the Freedom of Information Act it is still unclear what documents you are requesting.

Can you please say what information from which Metropolitan Police investigation you are requesting?

Kind Regards,

Kevin Simmons.

show quoted sections

Kevin,
Again thank you for your contact,

I'm having a problem with knowing quite what further information you need. I am not sure precisely what information the FOI legislation requires to be disclosed in this particular case but would have thought my original request was fairly clear ie "I would be obliged for a record of the investigating Officers notes/log etc following telephone conversations and emails (from Gibraltar) regarding PC Appeal No 70 of 1997 and allegations of perverting the course of justice and perjury. Also of document/s relating to why the investigation was stopped"

Although I didn't give specific information I would have expected my name alone would be sufficient for you to trace the necessary documents?

To be clear the case involves allegations of perverting justice by a Privy Council 'judicial committee' and Foreign & Commonwealth Office personnel in London and Gibraltar followed by allegations against John Stevens and others in the CPS and DPP offices.

The 'investigation' was prematurely stopped and filed as 'No Crime' upon Foreign Office personnel in London (and other government personnel) becoming aware of the involvement of the Metropolitan Police.

If it is your opinion that I am not entitled to the documentation requested or the relevant papers/logs/notes etc have been mis-placed or destroyed, please let me know. If you cannot trace the relevant documentation or identify the investigation from the information I have given you, again, please let me know

I will try to assist you further:-

The investigation was by the Organised Crime Group as referred to. It was conducted by DS Greetham and although he was prepared to carry out a proper investigation, take my statement, interview the relevant individuals and be shewn evidence the investigation was stopped by senior officers. That was done after government personnel, some of whom were accused inter alia of perverting justice, became aware of the investigation and the implications of that should need no explanation. The responsible Senior Officer and the one to whom subsequent correspondence was and is addressed is the Commissioner of Police who at the time was John Stevens and currently is Sir Ian Blair. (My last letter to Sir Ian was dated 7th April 2008)

You will understand that the Metropolitan Police are accused, by virtue of John Stevens acts, of deliberately stopping a legitimate investigation for which there is abundant and persuasive evidence

If it answers your question I am seeking discovery of all documentation relevant to the investigation by DS Greetham into the allegations of perjury and the perversion of justice that originated in late 1998/early 1999 together with all other documentation relative to such investigation and why it was stopped and filed as No Crime

If it helps further:-

By letter dated 15th September 1998 (ref LB2D/tbf/98) the Chief Crown Prosecutor (50 Ludgate Hill) referred me to The Organised Crime Group, Room 476, Metropolitan Police. New Scotland Yard and a further fax was received on the 22nd Sept '98

On the 26th Sept I wrote to the Organised Crime Group and confirmed the letter by fax on the 28th

Not receiving any reply I wrote to the Commissioner (confirmed by fax to 0044 171329 8366 on the 12th November 1998) seeking a response to my contacts

I received a fax from DS Greetham on the 27th November explaining he had only just received my letter and he had been in contact with the CPS who had sent him a copy of my original letter to them.

DS Greetham said the only way to take the matter further is if we spoke on the telephone or if I faxed him.

The fax from DS Greetham did not have a reference No but included on the top:

"27/11/98 13.51 NEW SCOTLAND YARD ARTS ANTIQUES > 350 79061 No 423

I then faxed DS Greetham with an outline of the case and on the 8th December he phoned me to say he would be coming out to Gibraltar to take a Statement and he would phone me again soon

On the 11th January 1999 he phoned again to say that the case had been referred to the CPS Droitwich to see if they would prosecute if asked. He said London CPS would be prejudiced because they knew Rhoda

Sincerely,D A Schiller

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Schiller,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2008040004511

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 13th April
2008, which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on the
same date. I note you seek access to the following information:

* A record of the Investigating Officers notes/log etc following
telephone conversations and emails (from Gibraltar) regarding PC
Appeal No 70 of 1997 and allegations of perverting the course of
justice and perjury. Also of document/s relating to why the
investigation was stopped.

Please accept this letter as an acknowledgement of receipt of your
request, which has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act
2000.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), this
letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request. The
Metropolitan Police Service neither confirms nor denies that it holds the
information you requested as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Act does not
apply by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 40 (5) of the act provides:

(5) The duty to confirm or deny-

(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held
by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of
subsection (1), and

(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent
that either-

(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial
that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart
from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section
10 of the [1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the
exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or

(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that
Act (data subject's right to be informed whether personal data being
processed).

show quoted sections

david schiller

Dear Ben

Thank you for your response from which it is noted that you are asserting that Section1(1)(a) of the FOI Act does not apply to the case at hand by virtue of Section 40(5) of the Act

Please state whether you rely on Section 40(5)(a) and/or Section 40(5)(b)(i) and/or Section 40(5)(b)(ii)

Sincerely, david Schiller

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Schiller,

I am relying on all of the sections mentioned below.

Kind Regards

Ben Sayers
Senior Information Manager

show quoted sections

david schiller

Dear Ben

Thank you for your response from which it is noted you rely on all parts of Sections 40(5) of the FOI Act to claim exemption from complying with s1(1)(a) of it

The purpose of the legislation you rely on to claim the duty in s1(1)(a) does not apply is quite properly to protect possible injustice to individual citizens and if the information requested contains material which offends against any legislation such information can and should, to comply with both the law and its 'spirit', simply be removed from that disclosed
--------------
The request to know whether or not you hold certain information has no direct bearing on any matter that could touch upon anybodies rights (including the applicants) as referred to in any Data Protection legislation and the notion that such rights could be compromised by the request on grounds connected with such legislation could not with any confidence be inferred.
You cannot reasonably assert that you don't hold the information and know that if you did it would include information that offended the Data Protection Act to the extent of exempting you from complying with s1(1)(a) of the FOI Act Equally you cannot reasonably assert that Section 40(5) has effect unless you know how and why the parts of that section you have relied on apply; ergo, you have confirmed that you do hold the information

Section 40(5) of the FOI Act exempts you from the duty to deny or confirm whether you hold certain information; nothing more! By virtue of the foregoing you have confirmed that you do have the information requested

That is to say the effect of invoking the exemption you have imports a confirmation that you hold the information sought and thereby renders the exemption inoperative
--------------

Section 40(5)(1) on which you rely states "Any information to which a request for information relates is exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject" and it is assumed that reference to the 'data subject' is taken to refer to the applicant (me) and if that is the case I doubt your reliance is justified.

The Metropolitan Police consulted the CPS in relation to the reported crimes in 2006 and I received information from them in response to a Subject Access Request. None of the information supplied under that application would seem to support your reliance on S40(5)(1)

For the record I have no objection to any information about myself being made Public so long as it is true, unlike information originating from the Foreign Office (Respondent) and made Public by the European Commission of Human Rights in full knowledge of its falsity

I would also put on record that I doubt I would properly be called a 'member of the public' as referred to in the legislation since I should perhaps be more appropriately termed an 'Informant' and since you have refused to accept information from me or take a Statement although I know certain information you possess I do not know the full extent of it.

What I seek to ascertain is what you did with the limited information you found yourself acquiring before John Stevens stopped the investigation and what further information you have that the Freedom of Information and/or any other legislation requires you to disclose.

Sincerely, David Schiller

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your email below in relation to case number 2008040004511.

Please can you confirm if you are requesting an internal review of the original decision?

Regards,

Ms S. Pallen
Policy and Support Team

Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

T: 020 7161 3604
F: 020 7161 3503

show quoted sections

david schiller

Dear Madam,

If you do not consider it appropriate to respond to the issues raised before invoking other procedures and an 'internal review' is the procedure thought to be helpful to you, yes

Sincerely, David Schiller

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. A Schiller,

Freedom of Information Complaint Reference No: 2008050004607

I write in connection with your email dated 18 May 2008, requesting that
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your request
for information.

The review will be conducted in accordance with the MPS's complaints
procedure and the MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 18 August
2008.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Mr. Nigel Shankster on telephone number 02071613649 or at the
email address at the top quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster
Senior Information Access Manager
Public Access Office
Metropolitan Police Service

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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

david schiller

Dear Mr Baverstock,

Thank you for your response with the implied confirmation that the Public Interest has been and is being served by the CPS's conduct : it hasn't and it isn't, the office of the DPP and the CPS have supported and continue to support a conspiracy to defeat Public justice.

If the accused were 'members of the public' we can be sure the matter would have been dealt with 'In the Public Interest'

For the record I will briefly respond to the points you have made:

1 Basically the information referred to in point 1 (i) and the second part relates to whether or not the police and/or the CPS made themselves aware of evidence and information relative to the allegations and I repeat that one of

"The purposes of this request is to ascertain whether the CPS have made themselves aware of that information or not. To date the evidence would suggest either the CPS does not have the information requested or are not acting 'In the Public Interest'"

I agree there is an element of seeking opinion and comment from the CPS. Harmful to whom?

I also agree that my request at point 1 is accessible by other means and the information can be obtained in case law books such as Archbold etc and I am pleased to learn the CPS are aware that such action is available

2 You have confirmed that you do not have information regarding the conduct of Senior Crown Counsel who had charge of the Respondents case in the appeal hearing: that information is clearly relevant to the allegations made and ought to have been part of the police investigation. That also applies to the last point you make.

You do now have that information!

Thank you for your attention

Sincerely, David Schiller

david schiller

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am sorry but I have just sent a 'response' to you in error: it should have gone elsewhere.
Please dis-regard it

Sorry for the inconvenience
Sincerely, D A Schiller

Yours sincerely,

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Schiller,

Freedom of Information Complaint, Reference No: 2008050004607

Further to my letter of 23 May 2008, I am now able to provide a response
to your complaint dated 18 May 2008.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:

* Uphold and vary the original decision.

REASON FOR DECISION

I fully appreciate that this is not the message you would wish to have
received, however, any disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation
is considered disclosure to the wider world, not just the applicant. In
this instance, the original decision taken to apply Section 40(5), was, I
believe, entirely correct.

Following my review of this case, I concur with that decsion, the
Metropolitan Police Service would neither confirm or deny that a
particular individual had involvement with police via these means, to do
so would breach their and other individuals right to privacy, thereby
breaching Data Protection Act 1998 principles.

I also consider it appropriate, following the review, to include Section
30(3), where the duty to confirm or deny does not arise in respect of
information that may or may not be held by the Metropolitan Police
Service, which would be exempt by virtue of Section 30(1). This exemption
refers to information obtained in or during the course of an investigation
and by virtue of Section 17(4), the refusal to neither confirm nor deny is
based upon the fact that to provide a statement of the reasons behind this
particular decision, would itself involve disclosure of information
considered exempt.

Whilst still neither confirming or denying that the Metropolitan Police
hold information pertinent to your request in pursuance of Section 1(1)a,
by virtue of Section 40(5)(a)(i) and 30(3), should the request be in
respect of / or pertinent to your personal information, please see the
attached internet link, which explains the procedure and provides the
necessary forms.

http://www.met.police.uk/information/inf...

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

However, should you have any particualr inquiries concerning this matter,
please contact me on 02071613649 or at the email address at the top of
this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Shankster
Senior Information Access Manager
Public Access Office
Metropolitan Police Service
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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 and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within three months.
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.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Hello again Nigel

Thank you for your response which as you rightly say was not the message I would have wished to receive : I am sorry for the delay in my reply

You (the 'met') countered my request for information with various requests of your own on the basis that you couldn't trace the details of a case for which a crime report entry had been entered (CRIS report) and in relation to which there is unending correspondence from a variety of sources.
You then argued that disclosure of information could breach a citizens rights to privacy and that would clearly only result from improper procedure since any possible breach of a citizens rights is protected by removing or redactimg appropriate information, as others do

The facts available to the Met at the time they were asked to investigate included :-

1 Evidence filed before all the courts in Gibraltar and the judicial committee confirmed the Decision not to issue a licence had nothing to do with the Governor of Gibraltar

2 Properly filed documentation by the Appellant and served on the A-G in accordance with the Rules confirmed the Respondent did not intend to oppose the Privy Council Appeal until the Registrar of the Privy Council, on the 17th January 1998, wrote '...I was interested to see that the Crown, at present at least, does not intend to be represented at the hearing of the appeal, I am bound to say nevertheless that their Lordships would welcome the attendance of counsel.'
Following that, on the 11th February 1998, although the time for doing so had expired, the Registrar confirmed 'The Attorney Generals Office in Gibraltar …... will be lodging a case in due course”
That was followed by the the filing of a Respondents Case 'out of time' together with fresh evidence which was put before a judicial committee for whom Lord Irvine had been chosen as Chairman and which was to label The Crown as dishonest

3 Earlier the Registrar had asserted 'I must emphasise their Lordships are only concerned with the documents which were before the Court of Appeal...'
The 'fresh evidence' was to the effect that the Governor had made the Decision complained of but it had been “...ascertained that the file relating to such application was in fact destroyed ….” and the Captains file “relating to this matter …...cannot now, be found”
There is evidence that a relevant file from the Governors office was in the possession of the A-G and the Captains papers should, by law, have been kept safe by the A-G

4 There are two versions of the procured Affidavits 'filed' in the Privy Council proceedings ; one purportedly filed by Kevin Columbo and the other by Albert Trinidad (Senior Crown Counsel)
Trinidad had charge of the appeal on behalf of the Respondent and had earlier been Ordered, in separate legal proceedings in Gibraltar, to explain why he had served an Affidavit on me which differed from the version filed in the proceedings
The current Chief Justice (Schofield) did not pursue the matter which remains on the record.
Earlier still Trinidad had been responsible for an Application to the Chief Justice to have the A-G committed to prison for failing to comply with a court Order regarding Discovery.
The available evidence suggests Trinidad concealed 'Discoverable Documents'

5 Following the PC Appeal the DPP confirmed jurisdiction lay in the UK and prosecutions would take place if supporting evidence were available The Met contacted me to say they were having difficulty contacting a particular ex governors liaison officer (FCO employee) and asked for my help so I obtained the contact details and the DS interviewed him. The ex-liaison officer confirmed my story (but said he would not be happy to give evidence in court) The DS managed to find a second FCO employee by himself. Both said they were 'not prepared' to be witnesses

6 In a letter to The Rev Ian Paisley, the Director of Public Prosecutions indicated he would 'take over and discontinue' any privately brought criminal proceedings against those referred to above 'In The Public Interest'
--

Political control of the judiciary is not 'In The Public Interest'
I cannot accept your attempt to exempt the Met police from having to comply with the FoI Act and I hereby request that you reconsider your decision not to supply the information requested and 'In the Public Interest' review the Metropolitan Polices' response to the allegations

Regards David Schiller

david schiller

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Schiller,

Thank you for your email of 6 October 2009. Whilst I understand your
frustrations, my reply, containing the Metropolitan Police Service
decision on your request for an internal review was sent on 18 July
2008. Within that reply I enclosed contact information for the
Information Commissioner's Office in the event that you disagreed with
the MPS position. In that regard, the MPS have conducted an internal
review in accordance with the legislation and it is open for you to take
the matter to the information Commissioner should you wish to do so.

I am sorry that I am unable to assist you further.

Yours Sincerely

Nigel Shankster
Higher Information Access Manager
Public Access Office
Metropolitan Police Service

show quoted sections

Nigel,

My request for information was virtually turned into a request by the MPS for me to help identify information that should be easily accessible to you and it is surely difficult to understand your inability to find any information? Having provided you with the information you sought you neither confirmed or denied holding pertinent information claiming that s1(1)(a) of the FoI Act did not apply

The case includes the claim that upon the accused becoming aware of the investigation it was stopped and filed as 'No Crime' by the Commissioner

With regard to your proper concern that citizens rights should be protected it is pertinent to point out, in addition to what has already been said, that most of those accused of criminal behaviour have already been publicly named and if any of their rights have been violated there are adequate remedies available to them

Whilst accepting your argument regarding the protection of citizens rights (which I trust you accept does not include their right to commit a crime?) that does not mean you can deny or confirm holding information that does not come into the 'protected' category and in the case at hand it would clearly be futile for you to deny you had some of the information requested since it includes information I gave you and other information that you must know I also have – so it becomes a question of why could you not locate the information and have the files been removed and/or destroyed as our exchanges appear to indicate?

Whether the files have been removed or not the MPS are now aware that there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that PC Appeal No 70 of 1997 was a blatant perversion of Justice and there remains a clear duty for the Metropolitan Police to investigate the allegations

That Duty is not dependant upon or related to any request under the FoI Act or limited by time

I will repeat some more 'information' that the MPS has or had :-

The PSNI have had contact with the MPS regarding the case and expressed the opinion that there should be an investigation
Counsel has given Opinion there is a prima facie case for perjury in relation to the Affidavit evidence procured for and accepted by the judicial committee

A UK lawyer has filed a Voluntary Bill of Indictment to issue against Gibraltars A-G in connection with the subornation of evidence which the Gibraltar court has refused to process

The Rules of Procedure governing appeals to Her Majesty in Council were applied to the Appellant but not to the Respondent and in recommending the Appeal be dismissed the judicial committee, chaired by Lord Chancellor Irvine, have accused The Crown of being dishonest : arguably an act of Treason
--
Both the MPS and CPS/DPP have implied that statements from witnesses are of no benefit if the individual concerned is not prepared to give evidence in court and relevant to that incredible assertion is:-
Three FCO employees, none of whom were 'happy' about giving evidence, were compelled to do so in the Gibraltar Magistrates Court. (One of the employees, later interviewed by the MPS, muted the possibility of claiming 'Diplomatic Immunity' to resist having to give evidence)
The proceedings in the Magistrates court established that statements to the original Judicial Review hearing that some licences had been issued by the Captain of the Port were false
The FCO has lied to every court in Gibraltar, to the European Commission of Human Rights and to Her Majesty 'in Council'
--
The way in which my family and self have been treated throughout this affair is a disgrace and entirely without justification and the support of such behaviour by those agencies and individuals superficially entrusted with upholding and enforcing the law is also a disgrace

As you infer a complaint to the ICO may be necessary but the MPS's duty to investigate is not dependant on the outcome of any such complaints procedure (which as you may know can take quite a long time)

Please ensure that the present Commissioner is made fully aware of this Case and approves the manner in which it has been dealt with

Regards, David Schiller