Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

11 April 2023

For the attention of Max Hill KC (Director of Public Prosecutions at Crown Prosecution Service)

“ In October 2018 Chief Prosecutor in North West England, Nazir Afzal,
alleged on BBC Radio 4 that the Home Office had issued a memo to all police
forces in 2008, informing that the child victims of Pakistani grooming gangs
had made an "informed choice" and "it's not for you police officers to get
involved in"

Would you please provide the referenced circular / memo / email ?

Yours faithfully,

p cialfi

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution Service's handling of my FOI request 'Evidence to support Nazir Afzal's claim about a 2008 circular about CSE'.

You have suggested that I ask the Home Office for the material, which you claim is not held by the CPS.
Whilst you were not obliged to do so, had you accessed the entire interview, you would have noted that Nazir Afzal, in his CPS position, stated that he, and therefore the CPS, had / has the document of interest, in whatever format.

Please be advised that three years earlier, DC Tony Crookes of South Yorkshire Police made the same claim about the same material being issued at the same time as claimed by Nazir Afzal.

Consequences of your claim that the CPS does not hold the information could be:
a) That Nazir Afzal was not telling the truth ( no inference as to intent ),
b) The CPS destroyed the material ( a section 77 offence given the publicity of the time )
c) The CPS holds the information but has been ordered not to release it.

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

Yours faithfully,

p cialfi

Dear Information Access Team, R. Zaltzman of the Crown Prosecution Service, 1 June 2023

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...
11 April 2023.

Thank you for your review of my request concerning the 2008 Home Office order/ note / memo / whatever directing to every constabulary in the country that they must not investigate child sex exploitation ( the inference being that 11-year old groomed, sexually abused girls were making informed lifestyle choices )

In essence, you have upheld the position of 'No Information Held'

I wrote:
Consequences of your claim that the CPS does not hold the information could be:
a) That Nazir Afzal was not telling the truth (no inference as to intent),
b) The CPS destroyed the material (a section 77 offence given the publicity of the time)
c) The CPS holds the information but has been ordered not to release it.”

You have written:
" . . . the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not hold recorded information that falls within the scope of your request and from our records we cannot confirm that we have ever held a copy."

This last statement may indicate that the CPS once did hold the relevant document and it has since been destroyed, along with any records of ever having held it, assuming the truth and integrity of Nazir Afzal.
Whilst you say that the file would have been destroyed in 2013, since it was deemed as having no value, the recording of its existence should have been retained.

As it stands, as stated above, you are suggesting that both Nazir Afzal of the CPS and DC Tony Brookes of South Yorkshire Police, although not knowing of each other's existence, and despite making their respective whistleblowing claims three years apart, and despite each making essentially the same disclosures, were not telling the truth.

As you have now effectively closed this case, then you are politely and respectfully asked to consider revisiting the facts of this case, outside of the FoIA, as to how the situation could have arisen where a senior and much respected member of your team could make statements recorded on the BBC concerning damning documents that the CPS is effectively claiming never existed.

Your response, or a statement should you not respond, shall be made public.

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

Dear Information Access Team,

I have taken independent advice on your review response.

Would you please send the metadata generated when processing this request.

This would include all internal communications.

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

Dear Information Access Team,
Dear Crown Prosecution Service

Thank you for your request for clarification of 4 June 2023.

You have written:
"Your email below is seeking the metadata and a copy of all internal communications regarding your Freedom of Information (FOI) request. Are you seeking an internal review regarding the outcome of our response?"

I can confirm that I am not seeking an internal review regarding the outcome of your response.
I have acknowledged earlier that you have already carried out a review.

However, I have suggested that, in the light of your response, you may wish to reconsider, an option which remains open to you.
This invitation was extended to you because your responses indicate that your previous senior employee Nazir Afzal repeatedly and publicly was not telling the truth. ( 'Throwing Nazir under the bus ' ? )

Given his current political position and support for Kier Starmer, who was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions in July 2008 - a significant period in the Labour government's suppression of information concerning child sex exploitation - your response could spell the political death knell for both Nazir and Kier.

At the same time you appear to be significantly harming the good reputation of senior detectives in South Yorkshire Police who were ordered to cease investigating child sex exploitation because, the Home office claimed, eleven-year old vulnerable girls who were being groomed and sexually abused were making informed lifestyle choices which were none of the business of the police.

I look forward to receipt of the metadata and any additional information that may be useful.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/e...

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

Dear Information Access Team,

On 8 June you asked:
1. To what do you refer under the term "metadata"?
"The information commissioner says:
"What is meant by a meta request?
A meta request is a request for recorded information about the handling of a previous information request, for example:
‘I would like copies of any information you hold concerning your handling of my recent Freedom of Information request.’
‘Please provide me with copies of all internal correspondence about the processing of my Freedom of Information request of [ date ].’
‘Can you please send me copies of the documents showing how you dealt with my Environmental Information request.’ "

You also asked:
2. Are you seeking internal communications regarding the processing of
your original request?
The above response answers your question.
I am seeking all the metadata since the date of the initial request.

You also asked:
3. Are you seeking internal communications regarding the processing of
the internal review?
The above response answers your question.
I am seeking ALL communications regarding the processing of the original request AND the review.

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Crown Prosecution Service's handling of my FOI request 'Evidence to support Nazir Afzal's claim about a 2008 circular about CSE'.

Thank you for your response to the metadata request.
It appears that the CPS has been thorough and diligent.

I note that you had the option of referring to the Home Office.
Please be advised that the Home Office were asked, and they lied.

I also contacted EVERY police force, who also denied having the document.

I do not want to conclude that Nazir Afzal was lying in his video interview with the BBC, but, absent the document that he alleged came from the Home Office, the conclusion may become inevitable and public.
Mr Afzal has been repeatedly contacted, but has failed to respond.

His erstwhile boss, Kier Starmer, has also been repeatedly asked, but has also failed to respond.

On 130423@12:55 the author responds ‘Phew….that’s a relief’
Why was it a relief that someone had directed that the request merited ‘no action’ ?

FoIA Section 77 was mentioned, and although the CPS refutes any suggestion of liability in this regard, if the document was held at any time, there would be a record of its deletion or destruction, with rationale.
Given the high public profile of CSE issues, deletion or destruction would have been unwise.
Does the CPS have a record of deleted / destroyed documents - the metadata mentions a retention policy but makes no reference to a record?
See also email HP 100523@1600

Please pass on my thanks to the Head of the North West . . . .

On 160523@13:57 The Senior Information Manager made statements that are factually inaccurate, and which indicate that the author had not listened to the BBC recording.
If other officers dealing with case had also NOT listened to the BBC interview they may well have approached this request differently.
Can it be determined if officers had listened to the interview?

Please note, at no time have I ever suggested that a document was destroyed with ‘malign intent’, so it is disappointing that such a suggestion was made.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5GM3fkM... 19 October 2018
Here is the actual transcript:
“You may not know this, but back in 2008 the Home office sent a circular to all police forces in the country saying ‘as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behaviour and therefore it is not for you police officers to get involved in.’”

Nazir Afzal 05/15/17 AT 10:33 AM BST
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/i-prosecuted-r...
“The term "child prostitute" was used extensively to describe them and it should be noted both that the Home Office in a circular to police in 2008 used that term and spoke of girls making an "informed choice" to engage in this behaviour.”

So, two references by Nazir Afzal, and another by DC Tony Brookes in 2015.

It becomes increasingly likely that the CPS should have the circular.

One internal email refers to having to justify why the CPS does not have a Home Office document from 15 years ago.
The assumed timeline is incorrect.
Here is a tweet from Nazir Afzal to Jaquie Smith on 8 July 2019:
“Jacqui, I have never said you or any Ministers were responsible or even aware of guidance issued by Home Office on this issue In any event, the world was different The phrase “informed choice” & “child prostitution” was law of land till 2015. The HO were simply echoing the law”

Jacqui Smith was contacted and denied that the circular twice referred to by Nazir Afzal ( and by DC Tony Brookes ) ever existed.

On 17 May 2023@18:10 it was written:
“I think in 2008 Nazir would have been in CPS London”
The author also shows that they have not listened to the recording.
Have the CPS London files been interrogated?

Where files have been digitised, as mentioned within the metadata, it is possible that the ‘flags’ to those files may have been deleted.
However, the data remains on the server(s).
With the right search parameters at IT admin level, specific searches would take but minutes to search through an electronic archive.
Have the server files been interrogated?

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

Yours faithfully,

p cialfi

Dear Information Access Team,

Thank you very much for your recent reply.

On 28 August I wrote:
On 17 May 2023@18:10 it was written:
“I think in 2008 Nazir would have been in CPS London”
The author also shows that they have not listened to the recording.
Have the CPS London files been interrogated?

Where files have been digitised, as mentioned within the metadata, it is possible that the ‘flags’ to those files may have been deleted.
However, the data remains on the server(s).
With the right search parameters at IT admin level, specific searches would take but minutes to search through an electronic archive.
Have the server files been interrogated?

Unfortunately, your most recent response did not state whether the CPS London Office or the CPS servers had been interrogated.
Could you please confirm whether these searches have taken place?

With respect to data retention and deletion:
a) Such a document would have been of immense interest and would not have been destroyed, according to your procedures.
b) If the document was destroyed, there would be a record of its destruction, who by, with what authority, and by what rationale.

You have said that I have the right to go to the Information Commissioner.

Before I make any decision concerning the ICO, your clarifications of the above would be appreciated.

Yours sincerely,

p cialfi