Further Inquiries arising from arrests of UDA Margate Kent 1992

The request was partially successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

In 1992 your Det sgt LEIGHTON was arresting officer of UDA hit men and drugs importers based in Margate. These arrests led to the murder trial, victim supergrass David Norris, that started six days before Stephen Lawrence was killed.

Would you disclose if there were follow up inquiries ?

(1) Into thefts of cyclohexanone from Sericol Broadstairs Kent. A theft inquiry which in 93 discovered the massive contamination of Thanet aquifer by cyclohexanone.

This is a chemical used in back street drugs factories such as for producing PCP. It is also potentially dangerous in hands of terrorists as it is explosive on contact with acid and is dangerous in tunnels and undergrounds.

(2) Cross referral to the Deal Barracks security cases and complaints 1981 to 1989 (Deal Barracks bombing by IRA)

(3) Cross referral to Thanet Council process in which a Head of Tourism and leisure Dept claimed unfair dismissal for having helped RUC with inquiries into IRA supportive right wing in Thanet

(4) The support and training of mercenaries in Thanet who attacked Mandela Regime (alleged by Searchlight magazine who gave evidence to the 1994 Desmond Tutu commission of inquiry). Especially relevant I think to Theresa May judge led inquiry Lawrence and Morgan cases as it may be the case that whilst Doreen Lawrence was meeting Mandela, during his state visit, two weeks after her son's death, mercenaries in Kent were preparing to attack Mandela regime ? The implication in the follow up inquiries being that some parts of the Met would have been aware of this ?

(5) The connections between Armscor, South Africa apartheid regime arming UDA and UDA base in Thanet where it seems mercenary attacks on Mandela regime may have been prepared and launched ?

I believe that it will be put to Theresa May that her Judge led inquiry must establish if Clifford Norris was on the run from police or under protection of police as allegedly in Kent were notorious UDA torturers and drugs criminals.

Given the spectacular collapse of the David Norris murder trial perhaps the Lawrence inquiry acted as a very effective distraction from the serious public interest questions about the extent of state involvement with loyalist paramilitaries? State dealings with apartheid regime including David Cameron's mission with Dr David Kelly of 1989?

Could you disclose the nature of follow up inquiries consequent on the 1992 arrests of UDA at their Margate base ? Thank you

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

To be clear Paul Condon became Chief constable Kent 1988. A time when crime complaints and security warnings on Deal Royal Marines Barracks were nil actioned by Kent Police (all 41 lines of nil actioned inquiry are listed in the report sent to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe March 2014 and as yet not acknowledged)

Condon was Chief constable of Kent in 89 when 11 young Royal Marines were killed in the terrorist bombing of Deal Barracks.

He was Chief constable of Kent when Met made arrests in Margate 1992 of UDA hit men and drugs importers/pushers.

In 1993 he moved to the Met Commissioner position with all that recent Kent knowledge a rattling around his head ?

He was Chief constable in Kent 1990 when the EU resolution to investigate and dismantle unlawful military groups was ignored by Kent Police.

It was Kent Police chosen to conduct the Lawrence Inquiry 1997 and then they refused to comply with their own police authority call for inquiry into matters terrorist and paramilitary in Kent.

I think it is essential that a Judge led inquiry call Condon on oath.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Card

Please note; The two requests you have sent in , have been  aggregated
into this one request. will be delt on case ref - 2014060000558

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014060000558

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/06/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* In 1992 your Det sgt LEIGHTON was arresting officer of UDA hit men and
drugs importers based in Margate.  These arrests led to the murder
trial, victim supergrass David Norris, that started six days before
Stephen Lawrence was killed. Would you disclose if there were follow
up inquiries ? (1) Into thefts of cyclohexanone from Sericol
Broadstairs Kent.  A theft inquiry which in 93 discovered the massive
contamination of Thanet aquifer by cyclohexanone. This is a chemical
used in back street drugs factories such as for producing PCP.  It is
also potentially dangerous in hands of terrorists as it is explosive
on contact with acid and is dangerous in tunnels and undergrounds. (2)
Cross referral to the Deal Barracks security cases and complaints 1981
to 1989 (Deal Barracks bombing by IRA) (3) Cross referral to Thanet
Council process in which a Head of Tourism and leisure Dept claimed
unfair dismissal for having helped RUC with inquiries into IRA
supportive right wing in Thanet (4) The support and training of
mercenaries in Thanet who attacked Mandela Regime (alleged by
Searchlight magazine who gave evidence to the 1994 Desmond Tutu
commission of inquiry).  Especially relevant I think to Theresa May
judge led inquiry Lawrence and Morgan cases as it may be the case that
whilst Doreen Lawrence was meeting Mandela, during his state visit,
 two weeks after her son's death, mercenaries in Kent were preparing
to attack Mandela regime ?  The implication in the follow up inquiries
being that some parts of the Met would have been aware of this ? (5)
The connections between Armscor, South Africa apartheid regime arming
UDA and UDA base in Thanet where it seems mercenary attacks on Mandela
regime may have been prepared and launched ? I believe that it will be
put to Theresa May that her Judge led inquiry must establish if
Clifford Norris was on the run from police or under protection of
police as allegedly in Kent were notorious UDA torturers and drugs
criminals. Given the spectacular collapse of the David Norris murder
trial perhaps the Lawrence inquiry acted as a very effective
distraction from the serious public interest questions about the
extent of state involvement with loyalist paramilitaries?  State
dealings with apartheid regime  including David Cameron's mission with
Dr David Kelly of 1989? Could you disclose the nature of follow up
inquiries consequent on the 1992 arrests of UDA at their Margate base
?  Thank you

* AND

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), To be clear Paul Condon became
Chief constable Kent 1988.  A time when crime complaints and security
warnings on Deal Royal Marines Barracks were nil actioned by Kent
Police (all 41 lines of nil actioned inquiry are listed in the report
sent to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe March 2014 and as yet not acknowledged)
Condon was Chief constable of Kent in 89 when 11 young Royal Marines
were killed in the terrorist bombing of Deal Barracks. He was Chief
constable of Kent when Met made arrests in Margate 1992 of UDA hit men
and drugs importers/pushers. In 1993 he moved to the Met Commissioner
position with all that recent Kent knowledge a rattling around his
head ? He was Chief constable in Kent 1990 when the EU resolution to
investigate and dismantle unlawful military groups was ignored by Kent
Police. It was Kent Police chosen to conduct the Lawrence Inquiry 1997
and then they refused to comply with their own police authority call
for inquiry into matters terrorist and paramilitary in Kent. I think
it is essential that a Judge led inquiry call Condon on oath.

Your request will now be allocated to the relevant unit within the MPS and
will be processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).  

You will receive your response directly from the relevant unit within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

In some circumstances the MPS 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.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above.  Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Logging and Allocations Team
Public Access Office

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for your response.

I understand that Thanet District Council, under new leadership, is consulting on creating policy guidance for compliance with Statutory Reporting Duties of Terrorism Law. This FOI is also relevant to that.

The Kent Police and Crime Panel has responded promptly to FOI to disclose that they have NO POLICY for compliance with statutory reporting duties of Terrorism Law. It is difficult to see how they can fulfil their public duty, to hold the PCC to account, without such a policy.

In the case of Kent PCC there are matters raised concerning Sections 38B and 54 Terrorism Act 2000 and concerning the reporting provisions relating to civil nuclear security. Yet the panel who are supposed to hold PCC to account have no policy for doing so.

I have never liked any aspect of law enforcement departing from Crown Office subject of an oath to HM The Queen sole fount of justice. EG The Attorney General is sworn to the Queen to uphold an overriding duty to ensure govt acts lawfully ! The principle that the law shall not be broken to enforce the law. Without the oath of Crown ministerial office where is the accountability ?

On a practical level the law designates reportable knowledge and then councils like Thanet have no policy or guidance for compliance. Hence the intended Terrorism Law creation of a trawl for information ? Not effective.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Card

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2014060000558
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/06/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

·         In 1992 your Det sgt LEIGHTON was arresting officer of UDA hit
men and drugs importers based in Margate.  These arrests led to the murder
trial, victim supergrass David Norris, that started six days before
Stephen Lawrence was killed.

Would you disclose if there were follow up inquiries ?
(1) Into thefts of cyclohexanone from Sericol Broadstairs Kent.  A theft
inquiry which in 93 discovered the massive contamination of Thanet aquifer
by cyclohexanone. This is a chemical used in back street drugs factories
such as for producing PCP.  It is also potentially dangerous in hands of
terrorists as it is explosive on contact with acid and is dangerous in
tunnels and undergrounds.
(2) Cross referral to the Deal Barracks security cases and complaints 1981
to 1989 (Deal Barracks bombing by IRA)
(3) Cross referral to Thanet Council process in which a Head of Tourism
and leisure Dept claimed unfair dismissal for having helped RUC with
inquiries into IRA supportive right wing in Thanet
(4) The support and training of mercenaries in Thanet who attacked Mandela
Regime (alleged by Searchlight magazine who gave evidence to the 1994
Desmond Tutu commission of inquiry).  Especially relevant I think to
Theresa May judge led inquiry Lawrence and Morgan cases as it may be the
case that whilst Doreen Lawrence was meeting Mandela, during his state
visit,  two weeks after her son's death, mercenaries in Kent were
preparing to attack Mandela regime ?  The implication in the follow up
inquiries being that some parts of the Met would have been aware of this ?
(5) The connections between Armscor, South Africa apartheid regime arming
UDA and UDA base in Thanet where it seems mercenary attacks on Mandela
regime may have been prepared and launched ?

I believe that it will be put to Theresa May that her Judge led inquiry
must establish if Clifford Norris was on the run from police or under
protection of police as allegedly in Kent were notorious UDA torturers and
drugs criminals. Given the spectacular collapse of the David Norris murder
trial perhaps the Lawrence inquiry acted as a very effective distraction
from the serious public interest questions about the extent of state
involvement with loyalist paramilitaries?  State dealings with apartheid
regime  including David Cameron's mission with Dr David Kelly of 1989?

Could you disclose the nature of follow up inquiries consequent on the
1992 arrests of UDA at their Margate base ?  Thank you

AND

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

To be clear Paul Condon became Chief constable Kent 1988.  A time when
crime complaints and security warnings on Deal Royal Marines Barracks were
nil actioned by Kent Police (all 41 lines of nil actioned inquiry are
listed in the report sent to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe March 2014 and as yet
not acknowledged) Condon was Chief constable of Kent in 89 when 11 young
Royal Marines were killed in the terrorist bombing of Deal Barracks. He
was Chief constable of Kent when Met made arrests in Margate 1992 of UDA
hit men and drugs importers/pushers. In 1993 he moved to the Met
Commissioner position with all that recent Kent knowledge a rattling
around his head ? He was Chief constable in Kent 1990 when the EU
resolution to investigate and dismantle unlawful military groups was
ignored by Kent Police. It was Kent Police chosen to conduct the Lawrence
Inquiry 1997 and then they refused to comply with their own police
authority call for inquiry into matters terrorist and paramilitary in
Kent. I think it is essential that a Judge led inquiry call Condon on
oath.

You further supplied the following comments:

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for your response.

I understand that Thanet District Council, under new leadership, is
consulting on creating policy guidance for compliance with Statutory
Reporting Duties of Terrorism Law.  This FOI is also relevant to that.

The Kent Police and Crime Panel has responded promptly to FOI to disclose
that they have NO POLICY for compliance with statutory reporting duties of
Terrorism Law.  It is difficult to see how they can fulfil their public
duty, to hold the PCC to account, without such a policy.

In the case of Kent PCC there are matters raised concerning Sections 38B
and 54 Terrorism Act 2000 and concerning the reporting provisions relating
to civil nuclear security.  Yet the panel who are supposed to hold PCC to
account have no policy for doing so.

I have never liked any aspect of law enforcement departing from Crown
Office subject of an oath to HM The Queen sole fount of justice.  EG The
Attorney General is sworn to the Queen to uphold an overriding duty to
ensure govt acts lawfully !  The principle that the law shall not be
broken to enforce the law. Without the oath of Crown ministerial office
where is the accountability ?

On a practical level the law designates reportable knowledge and then
councils like Thanet have no policy or guidance for compliance.  Hence the
intended Terrorism Law creation of a trawl for information ?  Not
effective.  

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

To enable the MPS to meet your request could you please provide  this
office with further information.  Please can you specify the exact nature
of your query and outline only the questions for which you require a
response.

I note that you have made several references to instances which occurred
in Kent and would advise that if you require data from Kent Police or any
other Kent authority you will need to refer your request to them. The MPS
does not hold data for any police force other than  the MPS.  If you
require information from the MPS, you will need to clearly and concisely
state what recorded information you require.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days, subject to the information not being exempt or containing
a reference to a third party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
7th July 2014  I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this
request and will treat it as withdrawn.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

C. Gayle-Petrou
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for your response seeking clarification.

The arrests of UDA men at Margate 1992 and the consequent murder trial, for the assassination of David Norris, were Metropolitan Police cases.

You are asked to disclose whether you raised inquiry, by Kent Police, into thefts of cyclohexanone from Sericol Broadstairs OR whether you had the results of such inquiry properly reported to you.

I anticipate that there will be one more FOI to Met to enable me to write a submission to Theresa May's Judge Led Inquiry. That is Sir John Stevenson and security reports, from Kent, given in advance of the 2003 jubilee celebrations.

At this stage I would like to know if Met raised or if they were properly informed of the Sericol solvent theft inquiry in Kent in 1992/93. Clearly if you were not informed then you had nothing on Met record for Sir John Stevens to refer to ten years later ?

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Card

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014060000558

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/06/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

In 1992 your Det sgt LEIGHTON was arresting officer of UDA hit men and
drugs importers based in Margate.  These arrests led to the murder trial,
victim supergrass David Norris, that started six days before Stephen
Lawrence was killed.

Would you disclose if there were follow up inquiries ?

(1) Into thefts of cyclohexanone from Sericol Broadstairs Kent.  A theft
inquiry which in 93 discovered the massive contamination of Thanet aquifer
by cyclohexanone.

This is a chemical used in back street drugs factories such as for
producing PCP.  It is also potentially dangerous in hands of terrorists as
it is explosive on contact with acid and is dangerous in tunnels and
undergrounds.

(2) Cross referral to the Deal Barracks security cases and complaints 1981
to 1989 (Deal Barracks bombing by IRA)

(3) Cross referral to Thanet Council process in which a Head of Tourism
and leisure Dept claimed unfair dismissal for having helped RUC with
inquiries into IRA supportive right wing in Thanet

(4) The support and training of mercenaries in Thanet who attacked Mandela
Regime (alleged by Searchlight magazine who gave evidence to the 1994
Desmond Tutu commission of inquiry).  Especially relevant I think to
Theresa May judge led inquiry Lawrence and Morgan cases as it may be the
case that whilst Doreen Lawrence was meeting Mandela, during his state
visit,  two weeks after her son's death, mercenaries in Kent were
preparing to attack Mandela regime ?  The implication in the follow up
inquiries being that some parts of the Met would have been aware of this?

(5) The connections between Armscor, South Africa apartheid regime arming
UDA and UDA base in Thanet where it seems mercenary attacks on Mandela
regime may have been prepared and launched?

I believe that it will be put to Theresa May that her Judge led inquiry
must establish if Clifford Norris was on the run from police or under
protection of police as allegedly in Kent were notorious UDA torturers and
drugs criminals.

Given the spectacular collapse of the David Norris murder trial perhaps
the Lawrence inquiry acted as a very effective distraction from the
serious public interest questions about the extent of state involvement
with loyalist paramilitaries?  State dealings with apartheid regime
including David Cameron's mission with Dr David Kelly of 1989?

Could you disclose the nature of follow up inquiries consequent on the
1992 arrests of UDA at their Margate base?  Thank you

AND

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

To be clear Paul Condon became Chief constable Kent 1988.  A time when
crime complaints and security warnings on Deal Royal Marines Barracks were
nil actioned by Kent Police (all 41 lines of nil actioned inquiry are
listed in the report sent to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe March 2014 and as yet
not acknowledged)

Condon was Chief constable of Kent in 89 when 11 young Royal Marines were
killed in the terrorist bombing of Deal Barracks.

He was Chief constable of Kent when Met made arrests in Margate 1992 of
UDA hit men and drugs importers/pushers.

In 1993 he moved to the Met Commissioner position with all that recent
Kent knowledge a rattling around his head?

He was Chief constable in Kent 1990 when the EU resolution to investigate
and dismantle unlawful military groups was ignored by Kent Police.

It was Kent Police chosen to conduct the Lawrence Inquiry 1997 and then
they refused to comply with their own police authority call for inquiry
into matters terrorist and paramilitary in Kent.

I think it is essential that a Judge led inquiry call Condon on oath.

This was subsequently clarified on 10/01/2014 to:

        Thank you for your response seeking clarification.

The arrests of UDA men at Margate 1992 and the consequent murder trial,
for the assassination of David Norris, were Metropolitan Police cases.

You are asked to disclose whether you raised inquiry, by Kent Police, into
thefts of cyclohexanone from Sericol Broadstairs  OR whether you had the
results of such inquiry properly reported to you.

I anticipate that there will be one more FOI to Met to enable me to write
a submission to Theresa May's Judge Led Inquiry.  That is Sir John
Stevenson and security reports, from Kent, given in advance of the 2003
jubilee celebrations.

At this stage I would like to know if Met raised or if they were properly
informed of the Sericol solvent theft inquiry in Kent in 1992/93.  Clearly
if you were not informed then you had nothing on Met record for Sir John
Stevens to refer to ten years later?

This letter is to inform you that it will not be possible to respond to
your request within the cost threshold.  This is because having searched
our MPS databases there is no mention of the thefts of cyclohexanone from
Sericol, Broadstairs.  However, to ensure that no information is held on
the files relating to the murder of Stephen Norris we would need to
conduct a full review of these, which comprise of 16 parts and 86 boxes.
 If it took us on average 15 minutes to review each file or box, we would
very quickly reach the 18 hour cost threshold defined by the legislation.

Therefore, we estimate that the cost of complying with this request would
exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in
regulations and for agencies outside central Government; this is set at
£450.00.   This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18
hours [at a rate of £25 per hour] in determining whether the MPS holds the
information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts
as a Refusal Notice.

Section 17(5) of the Act provides:

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that
fact.

Section 12(1) of the Act provides:

(1) Section 1 does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with
the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

Section 16 of the Act provides:

(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and
assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do
so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information
to it.

(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or
assistance in any case, conforms with the code of practice under section
45 is to be taken to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in
relation to that case.

Unfortunately due to the specific nature of your request I am unable to
suggest any practical way in which your request may be modified in order
to bring it within the 18 hours stipulated by the Regulations.  

Please note that if you were able to redefine your request, which may not
invoke the cost exemption, other exemptions may apply.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

C. Gayle-Petrou
Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for your response. It suffices really because if you have no case referral flag for cyclohexanone thefts from Sericol I can infer that the inquiry was never properly cross referred into Met Police files.

It is a solvent used in back street labs to produce PCP (Angel Dust) and is explosive on contact with acid. It would be dangerous in tunnels and underground systems.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card