Glen Jenvey Communications: Extradition Proceedings

Anthony J Cohen made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

This is a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in respect of the extradition proceedings of Abu Hamza Al-Masri.

Kindly forward all correspondence held by your office pertaining to Glen Jenvey, a key witness in this case.

Mr Jenvey has stated the following:

" I confirm that I do not want to give evidence against Abu Hamza.I have contacted the legal attaché at the American Embassy in London and withdrawn my 6 page statement, 6 video tapes, and 20 audio tapes which were given to the FBI in New York by the anti terrorism squad and bagged up and sealed in front of me by the police. I have been told that they will have to now destroy the evidence. I have withdrawn it and it cannot be used in any way in the extradition case or and trail against Sheikh Abu Hamza.I made this call on the 26th June 2009".

In light of the seriousness of this statement an early response is requested.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony J Cohen

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr  Cohen

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012100000595
I write in connection with your request for information  which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/10/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

"Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),  

This is a request for information under the Freedom of Information     Act
2000 in respect of the extradition proceedings of Abu Hamza  Al-Masri.  

 Kindly forward all correspondence held by your office pertaining to  Glen
Jenvey, a key witness in this case.         Mr Jenvey has stated the
following:         " I confirm that I do not want to give evidence against
Abu Hamza. I   have contacted the legal attaché at the American Embassy in
London  and withdrawn my 6 page statement, 6 video tapes, and 20 audio
 tapes which were given to the FBI in New York by the anti terrorism squad
and bagged up and sealed in front of me by the police. I have  been told
that they will have to now destroy the evidence. I have  withdrawn it and
it cannot be used in any way in the extradition  case or and trail against
Sheikh Abu Hamza.I made this call on the     26th June 2009".  

In light of the seriousness of this statement an early response is  
requested. "

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.  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.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

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 write
or contact Peter Deja on telephone number 02071613640 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Policy and Support Officer
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Cohen

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012100000595

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/10/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),         This is a request for
information under the Freedom of Information     Act 2000 in respect
of the extradition proceedings of Abu Hamza     Al-Masri.        
Kindly forward all correspondence held by your office pertaining to  
  Glen Jenvey, a key witness in this case.         Mr Jenvey has
stated the following:         " I confirm that I do not want to give
evidence against Abu Hamza.I     have contacted the legal attaché at
the American Embassy in London     and withdrawn my 6 page statement,
6 video tapes, and 20 audio     tapes which were given to the FBI in
New York by the anti terrorism     squad and bagged up and sealed in
front of me by the police. I have     been told that they will have to
now destroy the evidence. I have     withdrawn it and it cannot be
used in any way in the extradition     case or and trail against
Sheikh Abu Hamza.I made this call on the     26th June 2009".        
In light of the seriousness of this statement an early response is    
requested.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering
whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified
exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest
before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application
of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can
extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as
respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or
deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a
provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the
applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section
66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as
to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the
application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an
estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision
will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 30 and Section 31

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 26th November
2012

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

6

Dear Mr Cohen

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012100000595
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 04/10/2012.  I note you seek
access to the following information:  

     This is a request for information under the Freedom of Information
     Act 2000 in respect of the extradition proceedings of Abu Hamza
     Al-Masri. Kindly forward all correspondence held by your office
pertaining to
     Glen Jenvey, a key witness in this case.

       Mr Jenvey has stated the following:
          " I confirm that I do not want to give evidence against Abu
Hamza.I
     have contacted the legal attaché at the American Embassy in London
     and withdrawn my 6 page statement, 6 video tapes, and 20 audio
     tapes which were given to the FBI in New York by the anti terrorism
     squad and bagged up and sealed in front of me by the police. I have
     been told that they will have to now destroy the evidence. I have
     withdrawn it and it cannot be used in any way in the extradition
     case or and trail against Sheikh Abu Hamza.I made this call on the
     26th June 2009".

     In light of the seriousness of this statement an early response is
     requested.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within Counter
Terrorism Command to attempt to locate information relevant to your
request.
 
Before I explain the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I
thought that it would be helpful to outline the parameters set out by the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for
information can be answered.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to
information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a
request must, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether
it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that
information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is unsuitable for release. Importantly the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.
Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which -
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

DECISION

Having considered your request, I am afraid that I am not required by
statute to release any information I may or may not have found. This
letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).

The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds
the information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following
exemptions:

Section 23(5) Information from or relating to certain security bodies
Section 24(2) National Security
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement
Section 40(5) Personal Information

Section 23 - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with
security matters.

(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any
information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or
indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the
bodies specified in subsection (3).

This is an absolute exemption and I am therefore not required to complete
a public interest test.

Section 24 - National Security.

(1) Information which does not fall within section 23(1) is exempt
information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose
of safeguarding national security.

(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding
national security.

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test and provide evidence of harm.

 Section 31- Law Enforcement.
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice—

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that,
compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice
any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test and provide evidence of harm.

Section 40 - Personal Information.

Section 40(5) (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 provides:
(5) The duty to confirm or deny—

(a) does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held
by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of
subsection (1)
(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent
that either—
(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial
that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart
from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section
10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the exemptions in
section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or
(ii) by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Data Protection Act 1998
the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that Act (data subject’s
right to be informed whether personal data being processed).

This request relates not only to personal data but also ‘sensitive’
personal data (as defined by the Data Protection Act), Section 40(5) is
engaged.  This type of data is subject to further regulations under the
Data Protection Act and can only be processed under certain circumstances.

Section 40 (5) requires a public interest test
 

Public Interest Tests

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24(2)
By confirming or denying any information which simply relates to national
security and disclosure would not actually harm it. The public are
entitled to know how public funds are spent.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S24(2)
By confirming or denying whether such information is held by the MPS would
render security measures less effective. In order to safeguard national
security, there is a need for the MPS to neither confirm nor deny what
intelligence it may or may not hold in preventing or detecting terrorist
or extremist attacks. Any disclosure which confirms or denies whether
information is held would compromise ongoing or future operations and
investigations which are designed to protect the security or
infra-structure of the UK, thereby increasing the risk of harm to the
public.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or
denying whether an individual has assisted the Police would allow the
public to see where public funds are being spent and would be able to take
steps to protect themselves and their families. Better public awareness
may reduce crime or lead to more information from the public.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying
whether an individual has or has not assisted in any investigation would
mean that, law enforcement tactics would be compromised which would hinder
the prevention and detection of crime/terrorism. More crime/terrorist acts
would be committed and individuals would be placed at risk. Security
arrangements and tactics are re-used and have been monitored by
criminal/terrorist groups.

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S40  
Confirmation or denial of information involving any information on the
named individual would enable the public to know who was being
investigated and provide the public with reassurance that the Police were
protecting their interests.  

Factors against confirmation or denial for S40  
By confirming or denying any information is or is not held on the named
individual would contravene the First Principle of the Data Protection Act
which states that personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and
that a public authority must handle people’s personal data only in ways
they would reasonably expect.

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise the service's
ability to accomplish its core function of law enforcement. To release any
information that may or may not be held would disclose MPS practices used
in investigations thereby exposing operational procedures and
investigative protocols. Information relating to an investigation will
rarely be disclosed under the Act and only where there is a strong public
interest consideration favouring disclosure.

Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and
would also hinder the prevention and detection of crime and terrorism.
Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational
information into the public domain, which would enable those with the
time, capacity and inclination to try and map strategies used by the MPS.
The MPS is reliant upon these techniques during operations and the public
release of the modus operandi employed during this enquiry would prejudice
the ability of the MPS to conduct similar investigations. Additionally MPS
resources and its ability to operate effectively and efficiently would
directly be affected as this information can be manipulated by those with
criminal/terrorist intent to operate in those areas. As much as there is
public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and
balanced, in matters of national security this will only be overridden in
exceptional circumstances. The area of police interest is a sensitive
issue therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test
for confirming or denying whether or not we hold any records concerning Mr
Jenvey is not made out.

Harm

In considering whether to confirm or deny whether information is held or
not, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by such a
disclosure.

FOIA is considered to be a release to the world as once the information is
published the public authority in this case the MPS has no control over
what use is made of that information.  Whilst not questioning the motives
of the applicant it could be of use to those who seek to disrupt an
investigation. To release details of any investigation would enable any
member of the public to define the tactics used and identify police
tactics. Investigative methods have been tried and tested over a number of
years and these methods have varied very little over the years. The effect
of this information if held being available to the applicant and more
importantly those who might wish to cause harm to those providing
information to the Police Service would be of detriment to the Police
Service and the individuals concerned.

To confirm or deny that Mr Jenvey has or has not assisted the Police in
this manner would enable those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity
to identify the focus of policing activity.

The release of such information would also reveal policing tactics
regarding who was of interest to the police generally.  This could be to
the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in
providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the police
service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so
would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine National
Security. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of
policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is
appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by a
terrorist attack, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding
both national security and the integrity of police investigations and
operations in the highly sensitive area of terrorism prevention.

There have previously been requests for information that Special Branch
may or may not hold on individuals where the applicant has been unhappy
with the reply and pursued a decision from the Information Commissioner.
 On these occasions the ICO have upheld the approach taken based upon the
use of the Section 23(5) exemption.  In FS50258193 the Information
Commissioner states ” The Commissioner is satisfied that there will be
very few instances where the information held by Special Branch is not
also held by a Section 23(3) body, even if it was not directly or
indirectly supplied by them, as the nature of the work of special branches
involves very close working with security bodies and regular sharing of
information and intelligence.”

Similarly in FS50263467 the Information Commissioner further states “that
there may be instances where Special Branch information would not relate
to a Section 23(3) body, although these would be few and far between.”
 The ICO has also accepted in the same case that “all documents compiled
and held by Special Branch will on the balance of probabilities relate to,
or have been supplied by, a body specified in Section 23(3)  Therefore any
information falling within the scope of this request which might be held
by the public authority would be exempt under section 23.  To disclose
whether such information is or is not held would itself be a disclosure of
exempt information.”

Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational
information into the public domain, which would enable those with the
time, capacity and inclination to try and map strategies used by the MPS.
The MPS is reliant upon these techniques during operations and the public
release of the modus operandi employed during an enquiry would prejudice
the ability of the MPS to conduct similar investigations. Additionally MPS
resources and its ability to operate effectively and efficiently would
directly be affected as  information can be manipulated by those with
criminal/terrorist intent to operate in those areas.

Whilst there is a public interest in the role of the police  and
accountability in their actions,  there is an obligation under the Data
Protection Act to protect the sensitive personal details of members of the
public, any confirmation that the named individual has or has not been of
interest to the police is not in the public interest and would contravene
the Data Protection Act.

Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of information would not be in the public interest.  I consider
that the benefit that would result from the information, if held, being
disclosed does not outweigh disclosing the information requested.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any
information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

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,
Karen Fox
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 and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

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