Diagrams and any non-photographic images relating to Dr David Kelly

The request was partially successful.

Dear Thames Valley Police,

I note that this police diagram of Victoria Climbie was published in 2003:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/20625...

Please could you respond to the following questions:

1.Do your records and documents relating to the investigation into the death of Dr Kelly include any diagrams, sketches, computer images or other pictorial representation of, or relating to, the scene of Dr Kelly's death?

2 If any such images are recorded, please could you release these records?

Thank you for your kind help in this matter.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Miriam Stevenson

Dear Dr Stevenson,

Reference no HQ/PA/745/13

I acknowledge receipt of your request for information dated 19 August

Your request will now be considered and you will receive a further response within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act, subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third party. In some circumstances Thames Valley Police 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.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Thames Valley Police.


Yours sincerely

| Public Access Assistant
Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley Police
Telephone +44(0)1865 846329 | Internal |
Email Address [email address] or [email address]

show quoted sections

Public Access, Thames Valley Police

1 Attachment

Dear Dr Stevenson

 

I write in connection with the above-referenced Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request submitted on 20 August 2013.  Thames Valley Police has now
considered this request, as attached.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Jonathan Hands | Public Access Manager

Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police

Telephone +44(0)1865 846 329 | Internal | 700-6033

Address Thames Valley Police Headquarters, Oxford Road, Kidlington,
Oxfordshire, OX5 2NX

 

D Westwood left an annotation ()

How can this be refused under 30(1)(a)?

Mister Hands hasn't properly read and/or understood the exemption he has used. It applies to material held as part of a criminal investigation specifically in relation to assisting the authority with the decision to go ahead and charge a specific suspect, or to support that decision if already made..

Here is 30(1)(a) in full:

Section 30(1)(a) - investigations which the authority has a duty to conduct
The investigation must be one conducted 'with a view to' charge or prosecution. This suggests a specific link between the investigation and the 'criminal' outcome. This part of the exemption is relevant where an investigation is designed primarily to decide whether or not there should be a charge or prosecution.
Section 30(1)(a) covers information that is held for the purpose of a criminal investigation conducted either with a view to its being ascertained whether a person should be charged with a criminal offence or, if a person has already been charged, whether they are guilty of it. The public authority that performs the investigation need not also lay the criminal charges.
This part of the exemption refers to a formal criminal procedure; the process of prosecution, following charge, before a court or tribunal competent to make a determination of criminal guilt. Where criminal procedure may be one of a number of possible courses of action taken by the authority, section 30(1)(b) is likely to be more relevant.
The limitation in the first place to investigations which the authority itself has a legal duty to conduct is an important one. The source of the legal duty will very usually (although not necessarily) be found in primary legislation.
There is no specific requirement for the charge/prosecution to which the investigation is directed to be one which the authority itself may bring.
Section 30(1)(a) clearly applies to criminal investigations conducted by the authorities which are primarily constituted for criminal law enforcement functions, for example:
• police authorities and forces
• the National Crime Squad
• the Serious Fraud Office
It may also be applicable to criminal investigations conducted by, for example:
• HM Revenue and Customs
• Department for Business, Enterprise, and Regulatory Reform
• Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 4
• Food Standards Agency
• Environment Agency
• Health and Safety Executive
• Financial Services Authority
• Office of Fair Trading
– in circumstances in which the investigation is specifically directed towards a charging or prosecution decision.

Dear Thames Valley Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Thames Valley Police's handling of my FOI request 'Diagrams and any non-photographic images relating to Dr David Kelly'.

You will understand that my concern emanates from the fact that no statutory inquest under proper courtroom conditions has been held in respect of Dr David Kelly. As an engaged citizen I am somewhat morally compelled under the 1998 Human Rights Act to try to establish some facts for myself about the death of this eminent and committed public servant.

Police did release a diagram of a 9 year old murdered child to the public so there is a stark precedent for the release of any non-photographic images that I request.

I feel I am entitled to some detailed justification of how section 30 (1)(a) applies to the material you hold in this case. If the case has been reliably 'solved' and concluded release of any images would place our minds at ease. There is enduring public interest in, and disquiet about, this case as evidenced by recent protest and publications.

I believe the assertion "now the case is closed, would merely encourage further conspiracy theories which may disrupt police activity in the future." to be unclear and would like further clarification of what is actually meant by this.

I have no specific theories as to how Dr Kelly died. I would add however that on closer examination of the historical facts,many erstwhile "conspiracy" theories have been proven true. Take for example the assassination of Dr Martin Luther King and the involvement of US government agencies (see below). Ergo, we have to concede in principal that conspiracies can and do exist.

I look forwards to your kind response.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Miriam Stevenson

http://www.thekingcenter.org/civil-case-...

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

Yours faithfully,

Miriam Stevenson

Miriam Stevenson left an annotation ()

Dear Thames Valley Police,
Please note the article below in connection with my previous FOIR request. A photo of a replica 'dummy' of Mark has been released, plus other photographs of weaponry and Mark's jacket.

RIP Mark I hope you receive justice.God Bless you and your family

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Dr Miriam Stevenson

Public Access,

1 Attachment

On behalf of Jason Russell, Senior Public Access Manager

 

Dear Dr Stevenson

 

I write in connection with your e-mail dated 18 September 2013, requesting
an internal review of your recent FOI request.  Please find attached our
considered response.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Jonathan Hands | Public Access Manager

Joint Information Management Unit | Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley
Police

Telephone +44(0)1865 846 329 | Internal | 700-6033

Address Thames Valley Police Headquarters, Oxford Road, Kidlington,
Oxfordshire, OX5 2NX

 

D Westwood left an annotation ()

The section 30 exemption requires there to be a suspect!

See:

The exemption is divided into two parts.
Particular investigations or prosecutions
The first part covers information which has at any time been held by a public
authority for any of the following purposes.
• Investigations into whether a person should be charged with an offence.
• Investigations into whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of
it.
• Investigations which may lead the authority to initiate criminal
proceedings.
• Criminal proceedings.

Therefore, this FOI response and its subsequent 'internal review' were illegal.