Dear Attorney General,

On the .gov web page regarding your position here https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/... it clearly states that you have a :

"Specific statutory duty to superintend the discharge of duties by the Director of Public Prosecutions (who heads the Crown Prosecution Service) and the Director of the Serious Fraud Office"

Please provide any and all information regarding what the "specific statutory duty to Superintend" actually consists of, any policies or procedures which detail them, and or any actions required or available to the AG if the DPP and or CPS are failing to undertake matters correctly.

Please also specify, if matters relating to criminal offences committed by CPS staff or the DPP are raised to the AG's Office, whether there are any policies or procedures to address criminal allegations and provide copies of any such policies or procedures along with details of how they can be invoked and whether they have been invoked at any time in the last 2 years.

Yours faithfully,

W Hunter

Dear Correspondence (AGO),

Thank you for the response however the documents you have linked to do not appear to provide the information you state is reasonably accessible by other means. i.e. the 13 page framework document here https://www.cps.gov.uk/sites/default/fil...

As a lay person this document is particularly opaque in that it fails to clarify in lay terms what the duty to superintend actually is, and how and perhaps more importantly on who's behalf the duty to superintend appertains?

Section 12 appears to be the first mention of superintendence specified "as set out in the act" by which I must assume it is referring to "the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985"

Upon searching that act section 3(1) specifies "The Director shall discharge his functions under this or any other enactment under the superintendence of the Attorney General." it does not state what that superintendence entails.

That is the only mention of superintendence in the act and it does not identify the nature or extent of any superintendence at all.

Section 17 of the Framework then goes on to state

"17. The Law Officers, supported by the AGO, exercise their sponsorship and statutory superintendence functions as set out in this Framework and in accordance with government guidance. The Director-General of the AGO is the Senior AGO Sponsor for the CPS. "

There is then an expectation that the Framework document and also government guidance which would specify what the duty to superintend actually involves.

The Framework document has been provided but there does not appear to be any government guidance identified within the act or the framework document which applies.

In the framework document Section 18 states

"18. The Attorney General supports and holds the Director to account for the running of the CPS and the discharge of the CPS’s functions." before listing in 5 bullet point requirements for the DPP without listing any requirements on the AG at all.

It appears that the DPP is required to inform the AG about the running of the CPS but if the DPP is concealing information from the AG then there is no requirement for the AG to take action to ensure that this is not occurring?

Section 19 states

"19. The Law Officers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of their sponsorship and superintendence functions. " however my questions submitted regarding this very issue via my MP to the Attorney General resulted in the AG ignoring the question and having the Solicitor General respond in her place.

As such does that mean that not only is the DPP acting to pervert the course of justice by refusing to comply with the requirements of section 197 of the DPA whilst also failing to require that the CPS have any policy or procedure to address such requests or keep records of the requests made, but that the AG is also deliberately failing to comply with the duty to respond on these issues to a member of parliament?

Section 21 states

"21. The Director is a civil servant. The Cabinet Manual states that civil servants are ultimately accountable to the Head of the Civil Service/Cabinet Secretary. The Cabinet Secretary is responsible for the management of the overall Civil Service appraisal process."

Does the duty to superintend require that allegations made to the AGO regarding gross failures within the CPS amounting to misconduct in public office by the DPP should be reported to the head of the civil service / cabinet secretary? or does this fall to the AG under section 43 and 44 of the Framework? which states

" 43. If the complaint concerns the personal conduct of the Director, complainants must be notified that they may be referred to the Attorney General. In those instances, the CPS ensures that the Attorney General is provided with all relevant information.
44. The Attorney General may commission the Independent Assessor of Complaints to undertake investigations on behalf of the AGO or the CPS. Where such investigations fall outside usual IAC practice, specific terms of reference for the review will be prepared."

Having previously made formal allegations to the CPS regarding misconduct in public office by a crown prosecutor and then the DPP regarding consent to prosecute under section 197 of the DPA, it would appear that the AG must have been informed of this issue by the CPS? or is this yet another instance of the CPS withholding information from the AG to prevent superintendence?

However since the CPS have no means of recording any such request, no records of ever receiving such a request and no policy or procedure regarding such requests despite the requirement existing since 1998, it would be logical to assume that the AG has never been so informed because the CPS cannot inform anyone regarding information they claim not to have.

Section 41 of the framework specifies the AGOs support for the agreement without at any point specifying any superintendent duties in relation to this "Support" and specifically in relation to the first bullet point

"advising the Law Officers about their powers, duties and responsibilities in relation to the CPS and supporting the discharge of their relevant functions;"

It would appear that the AG has not advised the DPP of their Duty to address applications under section 197 of the DPA or any responsibility to provide a process for doing so or any requirement to record or archive any such requests and their outcomes? if they have then please provide that information.

Section 45 states

"45. The CPS is independent in making decisions whether or not to prosecute a case. Those decisions are the responsibility of the Director, who may delegate authority to appropriate staff within the CPS. The Attorney General is responsible for safeguarding the independent decision making of the CPS. "

The CPS have specified under FOIA that they have no records or documents which refer to or address section 197 of the DPA regarding requests to prosecute from the DPP.

So section 45 of the framework specifies "Those decisions are the responsibility of the Director, who may delegate authority to appropriate staff within the CPS." therefore if the director of public prosecutions is not making these decisions themselves, there must be a document which delegates their authority with a reference to how and by what process this will be achieved.

The CPS have denied any such document and denied any records exist despite 5 separate requests for permission to prosecute addressed to the CPS.

The last requesting permission to prosecute the CPS and or DPP for deliberate criminal offences under section 197 of the DPA which has yet to receive a response despite being made on the 16 December 2020 to Mr Cox of the CPS.

So in relation to your response regarding my questions 1-3 I do not believe your response to questions 1 and 2 are correct and whilst there is some information in the framework regarding a possible answer to question 3 it requires some clarification please.

Your statement that no information is held for questions 4-7 is also incorrect.

In relation to question 4 I would posit that section 43 of the framework document does apply, and that there is a process or policy which would denote that there is a referral process regarding any activity, criminal or otherwise, undertaken by the person of the DPP, which the AG would then be required to address.

That information is held by you and your refusal to confirm the information is held or provide copies of these documents as per my question 5 constitutes a breach of section 77 of the FOIA.

Since you denied these policies exist, your response to questions 6 and 7 may also be untrue and I would request, now that you have been made aware of the policy concerned, you seek to re examine your records and contact me so I can then request an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

W Hunter

Dear Attorney General's Office,

The response originating from an unidentified member of staff within the AGO on the 4th of January has failed to address any clarification of the request made and now appears to be attempting to state that the duty to superintend information is actually Legal Advice.

If anyone could actually believe that a request for clarification as to what the duty to superintend was a request for Legal Advice then your office would have responded to the original request with that reply.

Since you tried to respond by claiming the information was readily available elsewhere, then the fact that I have clearly shown that the information is not available in the materials you referenced now requires you to identify where the actual information is available to comply with the requirements under the FOIA.

Since I believe your first response was an attempt to avoid answering the questions asked, and your second constitutes a deliberate refusal to answer and an attempt to withhold information covered by legal requirement, then your actions clearly indicate a deliberate breach of section 77 of the FOIA.

Please record this as a formal complaint that the AGO is committing a criminal offence under section 77 of the FOIA and that by refusing to specify and indeed undertake to superintend the DPP and CPS that the Attorney General is apparently guilty of misconduct in public office.

Please inform me of where those complaints will be recorded, who will be undertaking to address them and under which legislation, policy or procedure they will be doing so.

Yours faithfully,

W Hunter

Dear Correspondence (AGO),

The emails of the 4th and 11th are written using the English language and I believe clearly articulate the request that you clarify where the information you specified was readily accessible within the documents you identified can actually be found.

I have clearly specified, providing links and numbered references for the documentation, where I have been able to find any mention of the Duty to Superintend and clearly established that there is no information in the documents defining what the duty to superintend actually entails.

You appear to be refusing to clarify or expand on your original response which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that you are fully aware that there is no information within those documents that responds to my original request.

Rather than actually respond to the questions correctly, you then attempt to claim that to respond with the information requested constitutes legal advice, and again that ignores the fact that irrespective of whether the response is legal advice or not, if the information is written down and exists as a record held, the requirements of the FOIA mean that you must confirm the information is held, disclose the information requested within 20 working days, or provide a lawful exemption for refusing to do so.

Since the AGO has failed to respond to a lawful FOIA request within the time limit specified by law, and has done so without any lawful exemption, I have requested that you formally record allegations of a criminal offence under section 77 of the FOIA as well as an allegation of Misconduct in public office against the AG for failure to superintend the office of DPP and the CPS.

My question "Please inform me of where those complaints will be recorded, who will be undertaking to address them and under which legislation, policy or procedure they will be doing so. " has again simply been ignored.

You have ignored my requests for you to clarify your original response in light of the information I presented to you in relation to it, despite my informing you that your clarification would then allow me to request an internal review.

You now require that I clarify which points of my communication are requests for an internal review and which are new FOIA requests when you have chosen to ignore my requests in total throughout.

Once you have clarified your original response, as requested, and I have that information, I would then, if still required, be happy to clarify matters with a request for an internal review.

In the meantime, the questions I have asked, some of which are clearly FOIA requests should be easy enough for you to respond to, and the clock is ticking on the time limit for response "In any event within 20 working days"

I would however appreciate a faster response in relation to the questions regarding the issue of the criminal complaints detailing whether they have been recorded, where and who will be addressing them as that information must be relatively close to hand and the requirement under FOIA is for a "Prompt response".

Yours sincerely,

W Hunter

Dear Attorney General's Office,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Attorney General's Office's handling of my FOI request 'Duty to Superintend'.

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

My request that the respondent clarify the original response in light of the findings presented to them resulted in a failure to clarify and an attempt to refuse claiming to do so would constitute legal advice.

The two responses are mutually exclusive in that if the information is "reasonably accessible to you by other means. This information is contained within the Framework Agreement between the AGO and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Framework Agreement between the AGO and the Serious Fraud Office
(SFO) " then it cannot possibly constitute "legal advice" as the AGO does not publish legal advice.

Either the first response was false, and a criminal offence under section 77 of the FOIA

Or

The second response is false and a criminal offence under section 77 of the FOIA.

Suffice it to say that none of the responses from the unidentified AGO staff have provided a response to the FOIA request made and no clarification has been forthcoming to address any of the issues included.

My formal requests that a complaint sent via this forum be registered:-

"Please record this as a formal complaint that the AGO is committing a criminal offence under section 77 of the FOIA and that by refusing to specify and indeed undertake to superintend the DPP and CPS that the Attorney General is apparently guilty of misconduct in public office.

Please inform me of where those complaints will be recorded, who will be undertaking to address them and under which legislation, policy or procedure they will be doing so. "

Resulted in the AGO stating "Please note that our complaints procedure does not cover complaints about access to information where procedures and remedies are set out in legislation" which again engages a circular logic.

Complaints under GDPR/DPA or FOIA are the province of the ICO.

The ICO will not undertake action on behalf of individuals, but advise that despite their refusal to enforce the requirement of law it does not preclude the data subject initiating legal action themselves.

The only way to initiate legal action is under section 173 of the DPA.

You can only undertake that legal action by or with the permission of the DPP under section 197 of the DPA.

Requests to the CPS and DPP for such permission are ignored or refused and I hold evidence of multiple occasions which indicate crown prosecutor involvement with the CPS to pervert the course of justice.

My SAR to compel the release of this information is being refused by the CPS, hence my request to the DPP to initiate prosecution of the CPS under section 197 of the DPA which the DPP and CPS have refused to respond to.

Hence my requests to the AG who has a duty to superintend the actions of the DPP, actions which include the duty to respond to requests for permission to prosecute.

Only the AG and the AGO refuse to acknowledge this duty, refuse to address the behaviour raised regarding the DPP and CPS and now claim a complaint regarding these issues does not fall within the complaints procedure.

However the complaints policy here https://www.gov.uk/government/organisati... contains a clear statement that it will address any issue regarding

the standard of service we provide
the behaviour of our staff
any action or lack of action by staff affecting an individual or group

The duty to superintend the DPP and CPS is a service required to be undertaken by the AG in law.

Failure to undertake those duties and indeed the wilful neglect of those duties, especially when shown in a public forum is defined by the CPS guidance as Misconduct in Public Office.

The deliberate and wilful neglect of the CPS and DPP to comply with the requirements of law under section 197 of the DPA constitutes Misconduct in Public office.

The falsification of information to pervert the course of justice by district Crown Prosecutors in conjunction with the CPS and refusal to address allegations of misconduct in public office made to that organisation in relation to that behaviour is criminal and constitutes misconduct in public office and perverting the course of justice by serving staff within the CPS which required the DPP to address and the AG to superintend.

None of these allegations fall within the remit of the GDPR/DPA or FOIA legislation and as such constitute an unacceptable standard of service, unacceptable behaviour by AGO staff and acts and omissions under a requirement of law which is being deliberately ignored.

The fact that staff within the CPS and AGO are also committing offences under the FOIA and DPA/GDPR appears to be something the AGO will not address, as rather than forwarding the allegations on to the allegedly correct authority to address they simply choose to ignore possibly criminal behaviour by their employees without investigation.

Indeed the original response specified "I can confirm that the AGO does not hold any information
within the scope of your request. It may assist you to know that this is because the AGO does
not have any role in investigating allegations of criminality and that this would be a matter
primarily for the police. "

This would again appear to mean that allegations against AG and or CPS staff of a criminal nature would result in the AGO refusing to address them unless contacted by the police as criminal offences would not fall under any kind of misconduct at work or require any internal investigation of disciplinary action .

That does seem to be a very odd way for one of, if not the, highest offices involved with the Law in the UK to behave but perhaps that's just me.

Since the AGO has ignored the multiple complaints not covered by information access law, please direct this communication to The Director of the AGO for their attention.

I look forward to your review response.

Yours faithfully,

W Hunter