December 2018 Gatwick - UAV Detect & Warn capability- Just the date or purchase or rental
I Hudson made this Freedom of Information request to Sussex Police Automatic anti-spam measures are in place for this older request. Please let us know if a further response is expected or if you are having trouble responding.
Dear Sussex Police,
In FOIA responses from the Ministry of Defence, it was noted that "Sussex Police are leading the investigation, and have deployed their own UAV Detect & Warn capability to Gatwick Airport." which was prior to the arrival of MOD assets, so on 20/12/18.
It is in the public domain that the Sussex Police "UAV Detect & Warn capability" was DJI's AeroScope so I don't require the force to name the equipment in use, I require the date that the "UAV Detect & Warn capability" was purchased or rented by Sussex Police. If the cost and retailer can be provided too, that would be appreciated. but the date alone will be fine. If it was a rental, the period to and from of the rental is required.
Yours faithfully,
I Hudson
Dear Mr Hudson,
Freedom of Information
I refer to your request for information which may be held by Sussex
Police.
Please find enclosed letter.
Kind Regards,
Information Access Officer
DPU, 3rd Floor Pevensey Block
Sussex Police HQ
BN7 2DZ
Tel: 01273 470101
You can report crime and incidents online at
[1]https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
We want to know your views - see what’s new and give us your feedback and
suggestions at [2]www.sussex.police.uk
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as
soon as possible - you may not copy it, or make use of any information
contained in it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Messages sent and received by Sussex Police are not private and
may be the subject of monitoring.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
2. http://www.sussex.police.uk/
Date: 1/6/22
Email : [email address]
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your Freedom of Information request which was received by
Sussex Police.
This request will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and you should receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act. In some
circumstances Sussex Police may be unable to achieve this deadline. You
will be informed at the earliest opportunity if this is the case.
Please note, every effort is being made to comply with the statutory
deadline but on occasions this may not be possible – we apologise for the
inconvenience this may cause.
Kind regards,
FOI Team.
Sussex Police HQ
Lewes
BN7 2DZ
You can report crime and incidents online at
[1]https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
We want to know your views - see what’s new and give us your feedback and
suggestions at [2]www.sussex.police.uk
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as
soon as possible - you may not copy it, or make use of any information
contained in it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Messages sent and received by Sussex Police are not private and
may be the subject of monitoring.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
2. http://www.sussex.police.uk/
Good morning,
Thank you for your FOI request.
We would like to inform you that unfortunately we are unlikely to respond
to your FOI request within the 20 Day time limit.
We would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused and we will
endeavour to provide you with a response as soon as possible.
Kind regards,
FOI Team.
You can report crime and incidents online at
[1]https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
We want to know your views - see what’s new and give us your feedback and
suggestions at [2]www.sussex.police.uk
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as
soon as possible - you may not copy it, or make use of any information
contained in it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Messages sent and received by Sussex Police are not private and
may be the subject of monitoring.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
2. http://www.sussex.police.uk/
FOI REF 1738/22
Dear Mr Hudson,
Freedom of Information
I refer to your request for information which may be held by Sussex
Police.
Please find enclosed a letter.
Kind regards,
Information Access Officer
DPU, 3rd Floor Pevensey Block
Sussex Police HQ
BN7 2DZ
Tel: 01273 470101
You can report crime and incidents online at
[1]https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
We want to know your views - see what’s new and give us your feedback and
suggestions at [2]www.sussex.police.uk
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as
soon as possible - you may not copy it, or make use of any information
contained in it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Messages sent and received by Sussex Police are not private and
may be the subject of monitoring.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
2. http://www.sussex.police.uk/
Dear Sussex Police,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Sussex Police's handling of my FOI request FOI 1738/22 'December 2018 Gatwick - UAV Detect & Warn capability- Just the date or purchase or rental'.
When information has been put in the public domain, it's ludicrous to use a cannot confirm or deny, as the information is already beyond dispute and known to be true.
Chris Woodroofe who was the COO of Gatwick Airport in 2018, said on BBC Panorama:
"The attacker had specifically selected a drone that would remain undetected by the airports DJI Aeroscope detection system that the airport was testing the time of the attack"
He also went on to detail that AUDS in now installed. So discussing a system that has been replaced would not reveal policing at Gatwick or any future response at Gatwick.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47919680
I require the cost and purchase date of the system if it was a Sussex Police hardware asset.
Yours faithfully,
I Hudson
IR REF 2315/22 FOI REF 1738/22
Dear Mr Hudson,
Freedom of Information
I refer to your request for information which may be held by Sussex
Police.
Please find enclosed letter.
Kind regards,
Information Access Officer
DPU, 3rd Floor Pevensey Block
Sussex Police HQ
BN7 2DZ
Tel: 01273 470101
You can report crime and incidents online at
[1]https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
We want to know your views - see what’s new and give us your feedback and
suggestions at [2]www.sussex.police.uk
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as
soon as possible - you may not copy it, or make use of any information
contained in it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Messages sent and received by Sussex Police are not private and
may be the subject of monitoring.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
2. http://www.sussex.police.uk/
I Hudson left an annotation ()
The ICO reference is: IC-193121-Z5F4
The ICO made the point in considering the case:
"The Commissioner notes the complainant has stated this information is already in the public domain, and has examined the link provided. However, it appears that this refers to Gatwick Airport, not Sussex Police, being in possession of the equipment. Therefore he does not consider this information to be in the public domain. "
Not only were links (plural) provided but a photograph of AeroScope being operated by Sussex Police including a link to its presence on Twitter where the device was noted as AeroScope.
As such I've appealed the decision to HM Courts & Tribunals First-tier Tribunal raising concerns about the fact my evidence is absolute that AeroScope was in the public domain being operated by the police. Police are embedded at Gatwick so it is almost splitting hairs to differentiate between the airport & police, especially for equipment the police were operating. The MOD are also on FOIA to the fact the police deployed the equipment. Additionally I've provided arguments of why I believe there's a valid public interest.
I Hudson left an annotation ()
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal so Suusex Police are expected to answer the question:
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/...
Good afternoon Mr Hudson
Further to your FOI request FOI.1738.22, and outcome from the First Tier
Tribunal, your request has been reviewed.
Please find attached letter.
Kind regards
FOI Team
You can report crime and incidents online at
[1]https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
We want to know your views - see what’s new and give us your feedback and
suggestions at [2]www.sussex.police.uk
If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as
soon as possible - you may not copy it, or make use of any information
contained in it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Messages sent and received by Sussex Police are not private and
may be the subject of monitoring.
References
Visible links
1. https://www.sussex.police.uk/report-online
2. http://www.sussex.police.uk/
I Hudson left an annotation ()
The response by Sussex Police following a First-tier Tribunal ruling against the ICO (who were arguing the Sussex Police stance), is in bad faith.
The force are trying to assert they had no AeroScope detect and warn, note in the Tribunal hearing it was specifically argued and (in my view) proven the police were using AeroScope. Also it should be noted the RAF with Leonardo's Falcon Shield were supplied via MACA under the command of Sussex Police so for Operation Trebor in essence the police had DJI AeroScope & Leonardo Falcon Shield as detect and warn systems.
It would seem the force is trying to hide behind the fact 2 techie civilian assets were operating the AeroScope while overseen by a Sussex Police officer so it would appear they are trying to use that to effectively split hairs and suggest they weren't operating such a system.
So they are not respecting the spirit of FOIA and in my view are demonstrating that they see the truth as something that can be bent.
I have complained to the Tribunal and ICO.
Even if the system was provided as free hardware with a staff cost in my view that would be relevant in any answer. It's moot as arguing there was no such system in operation is false.
I Hudson left an annotation ()
These are the references associated with this FOIA:
Case: EA/2023/0272
NCN:[2024] UKFTT 00166 (GRC)
FT/EJ/2024/0004
I Hudson left an annotation ()
I have discussed this FOIA via Sussex Police's solicitor at Cyxcel.com.
I am seeking the service of Barrister Richard Ryan of Blakiston's Legal to complain to the ICO about how this request even following a Tribunal appeal hasn't been answered.
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
I Hudson left an annotation ()
Escalated to the ICO.