Failing To Investigate Child Abuse

Dear Mr Pickthall
 
I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence received 03/03/2015 which is
being dealt with as a request for information in accordance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.
 
I am in the process of dealing with your request and will respond in due
course and in any case by 31/03/2015. Please contact us by e-mail at
[Cheshire Constabulary request email] if you have any further enquiries.
 
Regards
 
Sarah Davies
Information Compliance
Professional Standards Department
Tel:    01606 366556

show quoted sections

Dear Sir,
 
I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, as set out below:
 
Please confirm how many complaints of child sex abuse your force received
between 2008 - 2014 - How many of those complaints were Professionally
investigated  - How many of those complaints resulted in your Force
working with Cheshire West and Chester Council to resolve - How many of
those cases went to the CPS - How many of those cases resulted in
convictions.
 
In accordance with section 1(1) (a) of the Act, our response is as
follows:
 
From our preliminary assessment, we estimate that compliance with your
request would exceed the appropriate costs limit under section 12 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. This is currently £450. The basis for
this calculation is the cost of retrieving the information relating to
convictions. Between 2008-2014, there were 2,960 sexual offence victims
aged 17 or under at the date the crime was reported.
It would require a manual examination of each file to determine conviction
outcome which it is estimated would take one staff member approximately
500 hours to achieve. This exceeds the appropriate limit and your request
is refused.
 
Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires the Cheshire
Constabulary, when  refusing  to  provide  such  information  (because the
information  is  exempt)  to provide you with a notice which a) states
that  fact,  b)  specifies the exemption in question and c) states (if
that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
 
The appropriate limit is defined in the Data Protection and Freedom of
Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004, which is
covered by statutory Instrument Number 3244 of 2004. Furthermore, Section
12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 allows a public authority to
refuse to respond to a request for information where the cost of
compliance would exceed the appropriate limit as defined by the above
mentioned regulations.
 
I am unable to offer an alternative.
 
If you are not satisfied with the decision applied in this case I enclose
for your attention a copy of the Constabulary's appeal procedures.
 
 
Regards
 
John Gannon
Information Compliance
Professional Standards Department
Tel:  01606 364176

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Pickthall,

I write with reference to your email dated 13/03/2015 in which you
requested an internal review of the Constabulary’s response to your
request made on the 03/03/2015 (6307) for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

In line with the S45 Code of Practice, I have conducted an internal review
under the Freedom of Information Act in relation to your request. In
carrying out this review, I have referred to the legislation guidance, the
Code of Practice on the Discharge of the Functions of Public Authorities
under Part 1 of the Freedom of Information Act. I have also taken into
account the ACPO Freedom of Information Act Manual of Guidance and the
relevant guidance issued by the Information Commissioner’s Office in
relation to vexatious or repeated requests.

For the purposes of clarity, your request was as follows:

Sir your Force is aware I write then publish then have distributed
thousands of copies of TheBloodHound it is also aware I write and manage
[1]www.thebloodhound.org.uk

Yesterday I attended a meeting wherein I was told a number of parents
living in Cheshire West area had made complaints of child abuse to your
Force and to Cheshire West and Chester Council Social Services. I am
advised their complaints  were not taken seriously nor Professionally
investigated by either agency.

Sir your Force much like Cheshire West and Chester Council know every word
I publish is true, every word on my website likewise also true  yet still
your Force like the local authority repeatedly claim all of my FOIR
vexatious. It is for that reason I tread carefully for I suggest nor imply
anything I only seek information by way of legitimate and honest requests.

Please confirm how many complaints of child sex abuse your force received
between 2008 - 2014 - How many of those complaints were Professionally
investigated  - How many of those complaints resulted in your Force
working with Cheshire West and Chester Council to resolve - How many of
those cases went to the CPS - How many of those cases resulted in
convictions.

I would advise that after due consideration, the decision to refuse the
original Freedom of Information Act request is upheld.

Since 2013 you have engaged Cheshire Constabulary in voluminous
correspondence in relation to a broad range of policing matters. It is our
view that this level of contact with the Constabulary is both
disproportionate and obsessive in nature.

Further to this, we consider that your approach to Cheshire Constabulary
and the requests you have made amount to an unreasonable level of
harassment. In many of your requests and correspondence you have made
allegations against both the Constabulary and individuals, which have
understandably cause distress to the parties involved.

Taking this into account, I have applied the findings in published
guidance along with the findings of the Upper Tribunal in the case of the
Information Commissioner v Devon County Council and Dransfield.

Therefore, In line with S17(5) of the FOI Act, the information is refused
on the basis of the application of S14 of the Act. The request is now
deemed to be vexatious.

In applying the findings of the Upper Tribunal case referred to above, it
should be noted that it was found that whilst an individual request might,
in itself, be benign, when taking into account other dealings between the
Constabulary and yourself, such requests for information can be and in
this case are vexatious, when taking into account three particular
considerations:

These are in relation to (i) the burden, (ii) the motive, value and
purpose and (iii) the causing of harassment or distress. From reviewing
the number and nature of requests from you under the FOI Act, particularly
in the past 12 months, along with other correspondence, I am satisfied
that all three of these elements are engaged.       

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, you have further recourse for
appeal, if required, to the Information Commissioner. Information can be
obtained about the appeal procedure from:

The Information Commissioner

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK8 5AF

Yours sincerely,

Raymond Doyle

=====================

Raymond Doyle

Data & Security Auditor

Information Compliance

Professional Standards

This communication is intended for the addressee(s) only.
Please notify the sender if received in error. Internet email
is not to be treated as a secure means of communication.
The Constabulary monitors all Internet and email activity
and requires it is used for official communications only. Thank
you for your co-operation.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.thebloodhound.org.uk/