Internal Announcements - Operation Kalmia

The request was successful.

Dear Staffordshire Police,

Operation Kalmia was an IPCC managed investigation into the criminal investigation, and subsequent trial related to the murder of Kevin Nunes.

The investigation looked into the conduct of 14 serving and retired officers from the rank of Constable up to Chief Constable. Staffordshire Police has issued public statements regarding this matter, however as these are already in the public domain these statement do not firm part of my request.

Under the provisions of the FIO Act please provide the following information.

1. A copy of all internal memos and updates published on the force intranet, or in any internal magazine or newsletter which was circulated to the officers and staff members of Staffordshire Police for the purpose of updating them on Operation Kalmia, (both the actual investigation and the outcome of CPS decisions, IPCC recommendations and any other related matters).

Yours faithfully,

Mr L. Anderson

Staffordshire Police

Thank you for your FOI request.  You will receive a response in due
course.
Regards
Tracey Brindley
Freedom of Information Decision Maker
Central Disclosure Unit
Staffordshire Police HQ
PO Box 3167
Stafford
ST16 9JZ
T:  Switchboard 101
T:  Direct dial 01785 232195
E:  [Staffordshire Police request email]

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, Staffordshire Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Anderson,

 

Please see attached response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

Regards

 

Julie Ferrie

 

OFFICIAL

 

Central Disclosure Unit

Staffordshire Police HQ

P.O. Box 3167

Stafford

ST16 9JZ

T: switchboard 101

T: direct dial 01785 232195

E: [Staffordshire Police request email]

 

show quoted sections

Dear Staffordshire Police,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Staffordshire Police's handling of my FOI request 'Internal Announcements - Operation Kalmia'.

Today I received a notification indicating that Staffordshire Police consider the request I have made to be Vexatious. I strongly feel that the position apparently taken by Staffordshire Police is wrong and cannot be justified. All of my requests were made to reveal to the public information which I firmly believe is in the public interest, however I accept it may not be in the interests of certain individuals who had a part to play in the cases cited.

The grounds for applying Section 17 basically list the number of request I have made together with numerous internal review requests which have been necessary due to the failure of Staffordshire Police to comply with the provisions of Section 10 of the Act.

One point mentioned is a complaint received from the IOC, it is suggested that the IOC subsequently upheld the position taken by Staffordshire Police on that occasion. I cannot comment on the accuracy of that claim without seeing the complaint and final decision referred to, perhaps you could publish a copy on this website to verify the claim. The paragraph I refer to is shown below:-

"On the 23 June 2015 Staffordshire Police received a complaint from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) (Ref. FS 50584413) in relation to Freedom of Information request Log 5798. A response was provided to the ICO on the 21 July 2015. Staffordshire Police received an ICO decision notice dated 20 August 2015 where the decision was upheld in that Staffordshire Police cited Section 40(2) correctly."

In any case the IOC is a statutory body that is entitled to ask public bodies to explain the actions they have taken, they may subsequently be happy with the explanation received. I fail to see why an action taken by the IOC should count as a ground for suggesting my requests are vexatious.

I note in the detailed break down of the correspondence received you have omitted to identify the numerous internal reviews which resulted in an acknowledgement by Staffordshire Police that Section 10 had been breached, or the occasions where the interview review accepted that there had been errors in the original responses and in some cases withdrew exemptions previously cited or provided information previously refused.

Simple put, it has been necessary for me to make so many FIO requests because Staffordshire Police has been slow in responding and the quality and accuracy of some responses have been questionable. I has become increasingly clear to me that Staffordshire Police is uncomfortable about releasing some of the information requested on the basis the embarrassment it may cause past or present senior officers rather than justifiable grounds as set our in the Act.

Whilst I am sure that certain individuals would prefer that the matters my requests relate to are forgotten about, media and public interest remains. In recent months the cases have received significant media attention, that I believe is because these issues are important to the general public. I am personally concerned that this latest move by Staffordshire Police to block my requests under Section 17, is simply an attempt to silence me in the hope the media will lose interest.

In respect of this particular request, the internal memos released by Staffordshire Police will give the public an accurate view on how the public body viewed events, this is significant given that current Chief Constable was amongst the officers investigated by Operation Kalmia. If the memos do not portray a biased or embarrassing position, why would Staffordshire Police not simply release them?

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

Yours faithfully,

Mr L. Anderson

Mr L. Anderson left an annotation ()

Staffordshire Police have refused this request claiming it is vexatious based apparently on my having made too many request.
I will leave the reader to make their own mind up as to whether this course of action is justified or whether it is simply a way of silencing someone that is getting too close to the truth.
I cannot but help to think what Staffordshire Police will now do if some other citizen decides to request the same information that they refused to give to me.

Staffordshire Police

Thank you for your request of an internal review.  You will receive a
response in due course.
Kind regards
Julie Ferrie
Central Disclosure Unit
Staffordshire Police

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, Staffordshire Police

1 Attachment

 

Dear Mr Anderson

 

Please see attached response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Tracey Brindley

Freedom of Information Decision Maker

Central Disclosure Unit

Staffordshire Police HQ

PO Box 3167

Stafford

ST16 9JZ

T:  Switchboard 101

T:  Direct dial 01785 232195

E:  [1][Staffordshire Police request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Staffordshire Police request email]

Dear Freedom of Information,

Please see the below copy of a letter I have sent directly to the Chief Constable.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr L. Anderson
***************
***************
***************
***************
22nd May 2017

Chief Constable Jane Sawyers
Executive Suite
Staffordshire Police Headquarters
P.O. Box 3167
Stafford
ST16 9JZ

Dear Chief Constable Sawyers

In March 2017, I wrote to you directly to ensure that you were fully aware of actions taken by members of staff within your Central Disclosure Unit. My letter outlined concerns I had over a warning that any future FIO requests I made may been treated as 'Vexatious' under Section 14(1) Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FIO). I have not received any response from you in respect of that letter, however I did receive a letter from DCC Nick Baker.

Since March 2016, I have made a number of requests under the FIO Act 2000. Those requests have in the main been linked with an IPCC managed investigation which has become known as Operation Kalmia. I am aware that you were personally among the officers investigated as part of the operation. You will be aware that Operation Kalmia attracted a lot of media attention, indicating that the media consider it to be of interest to the public.

The purpose of my requests has been to make public the circumstances leading up to Operation Kalmia, and to highlight other similar matters not covered by the IPCC investigation but of great interest to the general public. I have made no secret of my aims and objective in respect of making my requests. I am aware that some retired and serving officers are opposed to the release of information which may reflect badly on their conduct.

According to your own figures quoted in a letter dated 8th May 2017 [Your Ref: FIO 8060] states that I have submitted a total of 10 FIO requests since March 2016. During the period quoted in the letter from a member of your staff [Tracey Brindley], includes two FIO requests which were immediately withdrawn once your Central Disclosure Unit highlighted that they overlapped a previous FIO.

Using the figures provided by your own staff indicates therefore that I have made 8 request over a 15 month period, i.e. an average of only one every 8 weeks. Within each of these individual requests it would be correct to say that I have addition requests for internal reviews where Staffordshire Police have failed to meet the time scales set under the FIO Act, and in circumstances where I have disagreed with decisions made and exemptions cited.

It is my right under the FIO Act to request an internal review where I am dissatisfied with the way in which a public body, in this case Staffordshire Police, have dealt with my request, therefore the additional requests were made in accordance with my statutory rights. I should point out that in the majority of cases Staffordshire Police accepted that they were at fault in not dealing with my requests in line with the times scales stipulated under Section 10 of the Act.

In an earlier letter in respect of the 'Vexatious' warning, Dated 4th April 2017 [Your Ref: FIO 8022] the author (Julie Ferrie) wrote “You have bombarded Staffordshire Police with you frequent requests/correspondence”, I had made a number of complaints to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), it is a statutory right for applicants to to appeal to the ICO and in fact your Central Disclosure Unit includes a reminder of this right in their correspondence.

On the issue of ICO appeals, I should point out that on at least three occasions these appeals have lead to Staffordshire Police changing their decision, or in the ICO directing the release of material previous withheld. I strongly believe that these changes and direction from the ICO demonstrate that I had sound grounds to make the appeals.

You will no doubt recall that I have previously written to you to make a formal complaint for breaches of Section 77 of the Act in respect of the way in which my FIO requests have been made; specifically the accuracy of FIO responses linked with Staffordshire Police's decision to withhold the Costello Report. The inaccuracies giving rise to that complaint were only identified through further FIO requests.

It has only since highlighting the inaccurate statements that I have encountered difficulties with the Central Disclosure Unit and the 'Vexatious' issue. I strongly feel that the complaint I made in respect of previous FIO requests is the true reason why Staffordshire Police are trying to apply the 'Vexatious' label. I am not in a position to say whether that decision has been made within the Central Disclosure Unit or whether it is a directive from senior management.

The FIO Act requires applicants to try to remedy any issues directly with the public body before referring matters to the ICO, therefore I again writing to you to request that you look into this mater closely. If having considered this matter fully you feel that the decision to apply the 'Vexatious' label is correct, I would be grateful if you could write to me to confirm that you uphold that decision.

Once I have your decision I will be able to consider whether or not to refer this matter on to the ICO. In addition to sending this letter to you directly I will place a copy on the 'whatdotheyknow.com' website so that those member of the public following this matter will be kept up to date with progress.

Your truly

Joe Anderson

Freedom of Information, Staffordshire Police

11 Attachments

Dear Mr Anderson

 

This is a further attempt to forward the attached response in relation to
you Freedom of Information request.

 

Regards

 

[1]https://sp-intranet.staffordshire.police...

 

Freedom of Information

Central Disclosure Unit

Staffordshire Police HQ

PO Box 3167

Stafford

ST16 9JZ

T:  Switchboard 101

E:  [2][Staffordshire Police request email]

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[Staffordshire Police request email]

Mr L. Anderson left an annotation ()

Staffordshire Police have now provided the requested information after the intervention of the Information Commissioner who disagreed with the application of the exemptions quoted and also questioned the accuracy of some of the statements provided by Staffordshire Police in support of their initial refusal to release the information.
For full details of the ICO Decision Notice please see :-
https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...