Freedom of Speech - The cost

Dear Mr Pickthall,
 
I refer to your recent request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, as set out below:
 
official records prove in early April 2013 the then Chief Constable
ordered numbers of his officers to go door to door throughout the village
of Davenham, and other Cheshire villages, pressing residents to ignore the
latest issue of thebloodhound my own publication. The Chief Constable
objected to my including in previous publications irrefutable evidence
proving him refusing to investigate substantial evidence proving senior
Cheshire West and Chester Council officers, and some Councillor's
committing serious criminal offences. The Chief Constable also objected to
my including irrefutable evidence proving him having dumb down the annual
crime figures for the years 2008 onward.
 
Clearly this was not a inexpensive operation and one which members of the
public such as myself are entitled to know the cost of therefore please
provide me a full breakdown of the total cost of this nonsensical and
completely unlawful operation intended to suppress my right to free speech
 
In accordance with section 1(1) (a) of the Act, our response is as
follows:
 
The Cheshire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the
information that you are requesting. To give a statement  of the reasons
why neither confirming nor denying is appropriate in this case would
itself involve disclosure of exempt information, therefore under section
17(4), no explanation can be given. To the extent that section 40 (5)
applies, the Cheshire Constabulary has determined that in all the
circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exclusion
of the duty to neither confirm nor deny outweighs the public interest in
confirming whether or not the information is held.
 
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,

Internal Review – The Freedom of Information Act 2000

I write with reference to your email dated 24th November 2014 in which you requested an internal review of the Constabulary’s response to your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in its communication of the same date.

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 for information. 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 communications between yourself and the Constabulary in relation to your request for information.

For the purposes of clarity, your request is set out below:

official records prove in early April 2013 the then Chief Constable ordered numbers of his officers to go door to door throughout the village of Davenham, and other Cheshire villages, pressing residents to ignore the latest issue of thebloodhound my own publication. The Chief Constable objected to my including in previous publications irrefutable evidence proving him refusing to investigate substantial evidence proving senior Cheshire West and Chester Council officers, and some Councillor's committing serious criminal offences. The Chief Constable also objected to my including irrefutable evidence proving him having dumb down the annual crime figures for the years 2008 onward.

Clearly this was not a inexpensive operation and one which members of the public such as myself are entitled to know the cost of therefore please provide me a full breakdown of the total cost of this nonsensical and completely unlawful operation intended to suppress my right to free speech

I would advise that after due consideration, the original Freedom of Information Act response as detailed in the Constabulary’s email of the 24th November 2014 is upheld.

In line with S1(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information requested. In conveying the rationale as to why we are unable to confirm or deny if the information held would, in itself, necessitate the disclosure of exempt information. As such, under S17(4) no explanation can be provided. To the point that S40(5) is applied, the Constabulary has decreed that in the given circumstances, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to neither confirm nor deny is greater than the public interest in confirming whether the information requested is held or not.

If I can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

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,

Nick Regan

Nick Regan
Information Security Manager
Information Compliance
Professional Standards
Cheshire Constabulary
01606 364113

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.