Investigation carried out on behalf of Cheshire PCC

Neil Wilby made this Freedom of Information request to North Yorkshire Police

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 successful.

Dear North Yorkshire Police (NYP),

A disciplinary hearing into alleged gross misconduct of Cheshire Constabulary's chief constable concluded yesterday (Monday 17th September, 2018). The hearing commenced in April, 2018, very shortly after the unexpected retirement of NYP chief constable, Dave Jones.

During the hearing, NYP's Head of Professional Standards, Supt Marie Taylor, gave oral evidence to the Panel. She had been given delegated authority by Mr Jones to carry out the investigation under his supervision. Supt Taylor told the Panel that she had been assisted in the investigation by one other NYP officer (apart from the chief constable), whom she declined to name. Much of the mechanics, and substance, of the investigation, such as it was, emerged in evidence.

The misconduct investigation was carried out by NYP at the invitation of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) for Cheshire, during 2017. There is substantial public interest in this investigation, largely because of the scathing criticism of it by both John Beggs QC (representing the PCC) and Gerard Boyle QC (representing the chief constable). It emerged during cross examination of the PCC that Mr Jones had assured the PCC that he was capable and experienced in such investigations. All the evidence suggests he was not.

The Panel Chair, Rachel Crasnow QC is expected to underscore the criticism of the NYP investigation in her written findings. Not least because of the substantial additional burden placed on taxpayers as a result of the consequential elongation of the disciplinary process. This grotesque waste of public money heightens public interest, as does informed speculation that this was one of two reasons why Mr Jones very suddenly exited the police service.

By way of the Freedom of Information Act, and now that proceedings are concluded, please disclose all data held by NYP concerning this investigation.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Thank you for your email, please treat this as an acknowledgement of receipt.

We are currently experiencing a very high volume of requests for information. We will endeavour to provide a response to your request as soon as we can.

Your email will be dealt with accordingly.

PLEASE NOTE: If your query is to address an urgent safeguarding concern then please redirect your enquiry to the Vulnerability Assessment Team email: [email address]<mailto:[email address]>
The Vulnerability Assessment Team is available during office hours Monday to Friday.

Civil Disclosure Unit

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk<http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/>

show quoted sections

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your request for information (691.2018-19). I have reviewed the investigation file held by North Yorkshire Police and found that it contains over 1030 documents and emails, meaning that it would take a Legal Officer over 51 working hours to review all the documents in order to make a decision on disclosure. As you are aware, this case has attracted national press coverage, and the information held by North Yorkshire Police in relation to the investigation carried out by the Force’s Professional Standards Department includes data that would engage particular exemptions under the Act.

Currently, the Civil Disclosure Unit are experiencing unprecedented levels of requests for disclosure, in addition to receiving an increased number of FOI requests. In light of this, I believe it is therefore disproportionate for a member of staff to spend such a large amount of time on a single FOI request and, in line with ICO guidance, would class this request - in its current form - as imposing a grossly oppressive burden on the Force. In order to avoid engaging a Section 14 exemption under the Freedom of Information Act, I would therefore request that you submit a less burdensome request.

Please let me know how you wish to proceed. If I don’t hear from you within 20 working days, I will consider that you no longer require the information and will close your request.

Kind Regards

Liz

Liz Fryar
Collar Number 4437
Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually.

www.northyorkshire.police.uk

Committed to the Code of Ethics

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

show quoted sections

Dear Liz,

As a complete coincidence, I was reviewing this request yesterday evening.

Taken at its face, it did seem a sub-optimal request, with far too broad a scope to expect meaningful, if any, disclosure. I am, therefore, grateful that you have afforded me the opportunity to refine it and apologise for any extra work this may have caused. I am, of course, more aware than most of the pressure under which your Unit is presently operating

I will revert, before close of business on Monday, with a much more specific request, designed to ensure that it does not venture into either section 12 or 14 territory. I will also try, as far as possible, again in a spirit of co-operation, to avoid requesting disclosure that may invite exemption under either section 31 or 40.

I accept, readily, that this may delay the response.

Kind regards

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter : @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Dear Liz,

Further to my communication of 12th October, please see below a refined request for information:

1. Operational codename.

2. Terms of reference.

3. Date investigation commenced.

4. Date investigation outcome report sent to Cheshire PCC.

5. Number of NYP officers engaged on the investigation and their rank(s).

6. Amount invoiced to Cheshire PCC as cost of investigation.

7. Copy of investigation report.

8. Copy of email, letter correspondence between ex CC Dave Jones (and/or his PA and/or his staff officer) and Cheshire PCC, David Keane (and/or his PA and/or his chief executive).

With regard to Q's 2, 6 and 7 may I please invite attention to the recent Tribunal case concerning Operation Barium, an investigation into alleged gross misconduct concerning Mark Gilmore (EA/2017/0186)? It should assist you to know that the present interim chief executive of NYPCC was involved in that process.

West Yorkshire PCC released TOR's, Investigation Report (redacted) upon completion of proceedings between himself and Mr Gilmore. I was the requester in that instance.

A different requester (the Yorkshire Post, I believe) obtained, in stages, disclosure of cost of Op Barium charged to Lancashire Police by WYOPCC.

The similarities between Mr Gilmore's case and that of Mr Byrne, investigated by NYP, are many and remarkable. Both attracted widespread media attention - and continue to do so.

Once again, may I thank you for the opportunity to refine the request and, in so doing, hope it considerably reduces the burden on your Unit.

Kind regards

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

Good morning,

Thank you for your email - I confirm that I have received this refinement and a response will be sent to you in due course,

Kind Regards

Liz

Liz Fryar
Collar Number 4437
Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually.

www.northyorkshire.police.uk

Committed to the Code of Ethics

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

show quoted sections

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

3 Attachments

Good afternoon,

 

Please see attached response to your request for information
(691.2018-19),

 

Kind Regards

 

Liz

 

Liz Fryar

Collar Number 4437

Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police

 

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

[1]www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/

Edward Williams left an annotation ()

"At this time, the panel in the case have not yet reached their decision, which is subject to appeal,
meaning that the case is not formally concluded. Releasing the full investigation report could
therefore undermine the fairness of this process."

How, EXACTLY would release undermine the fairness of the process?

Neil Wilby left an annotation ()

Methodology of North Yorkshire Police (and NYPCC) when dealing with information requests under the Act is to, first, make the decision NOT to disclose then arrange reasons, however nonsensical, around that pre-formed decision. I have proved this many times over.

Dear North Yorkshire Police (NYP),

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

I am writing to request an internal review of North Yorkshire Police's handling of my FOI request 'Investigation carried out on behalf of Cheshire PCC'.

The grounds for complaint are as follows. It should be noted, by the readers and fellow users of the What Do They Know website, that these grounds are drafted with them, and the wider world, firmly in mind, and also in the knowledge, given the past history of NYP, that this request and internal review is likely to be considered later by the Information Commissioner's Office and, ultimately, by an information rights tribunal judge:

1. Firstly may I thank NYP for the disclosure already made. As a journalist, I am acutely aware of the difficulties that the Civil Disclosure Unit (CDU) faces in fulfilling its obligations under the Act. However, the improvements in both timeliness, and quality, of response, promised publicly, over the past seven years to my certain knowledge, have plainly not materialised.

2. As part of the long-running campaign, in my role as journalist and 'social watchdog', to have the NYP CDU placed into the Information Commissioner's monitoring scheme, it must be noted that Section 10 and Section 17 of the Act are both breached, yet again. No explanation has, so far, been given by NYP for the breaches. The internal reviewer is invited to address this point in detail – and not by saying that there is a large increase in numbers of FOIA requests, or they are more complex. Neither are true. The picture painted on What Do They Know and on the NYP disclosure log paint a very different picture.

3. It is also noted that other requests have been finalised that were submitted AFTER the instant request, whilst the latter has, of course, been subject to the customary delay. There is no provision in the Act for one request to be preferred over another. One might, reasonably, expect the 'cab-rank' principle to be deployed. The internal reviewer is invited to provide a full explanation as to why my requests under the Act are placed in ‘special measures’.

4. The point raised in para 3 above adds force to the proposition that requests from both myself, and other journalists, are treated differently, and much more defensively, by NYP, than those from other requesters. It is a well-established foundation stone of the Act that all requests are applicant blind and disclosure is to the world. The internal reviewer should specifically address this matter also. If public confidence is to be maintained in both the police service, and the Act, assuranceis needed that all information requesters are treated equally, and fairly.

5. The over-riding principle behind freedom of information legislation is that the public have a right to know about the activities of public authorities, and police forces in particular, unless there is a good reason for them not to. More commonly termed as a presumption, or assumption, in favour of disclosure. Over the past four years it has been well established by me, and others, that NYP operate the reverse principle: Disclosure will only be made if there is absolutely no way NYP can avoid it, and the police force will frustrate Parliament's requirements, as and when they feel it expedient to do so. A methodology, unlawful as it is, that is wholeheartedly endorsed by no less a body than the National Police Chiefs Council, who also treat the Act, and requests from me in particular, with utter contempt.

6. In the instant request, the belatedly-issued Section 17 notice sets out that part of the information has been redacted under section 40(2) . What is not rehearsed by NYP, and should be considered carefully by the internal reviewer, is that all but one of those names has been widely publicised in local, regional and national press reports - and some of them by at least three network broadcast companies, to my own certain knowledge. The proceedings were also live-tweeted and live-blogged by the Warrington Guardian and BBC North West. In addition, the complainants gave evidence, freely, in a misconduct hearing held in public and with a press corps in attendance. Accordingly, it is my respectful submission that, whilst disclosure under the Act requires a different test, there is no 'unfairness' in disclosing all of the names of the complainants, except the individual who sought whistle blower anonymity. Nor would, for the same reasons set out in this paragraph disclosure breach data protection legislation, in all the circumstances of this request. The disclosure officer simply saying it would be unfair, absent of factual analysis and cogent reasoning, does not mean it is. The internal reviewer is invited to view such analysis and reasoning much more carefully when looking at the request afresh.

7. The Section 17 notice also sets out reliance on Section 31(1)(a). The narrative accompanying the reliance is flawed on the facts and wholly misconceived in law for all the reasons in the paragraphs 8 to 19 below.

8. It is my respectful submission that the decision to fully redact 124 pages of the investigation report, and partially redact the remaining 11, was born of protecting what little credibility remains of NYP as a police force conducting either criminal, or misconduct, investigations . I go further into the NYP decision making over thie instant request, in the succeeding paragraphs, and invite the internal reviewer to, therefore, consider his/her independence from departmental influences when dealing with these complaints.

8. The subject investigation, signed off by ex-chief constable Dave Jones as investigation officer, was described in his written, and oral, submissions by John Beggs QC, who represented the Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner in the proceedings as 'sub-optimal'. He was being very kind. During examination and cross-examination of witnesses, by both Mr Beggs and Gerard Boyle QC, who represented chief constable Simon Byrne, it became apparent that the investigation was an incompetent shambles. It has added hugely to the time and cost of the misconduct process. The evidence given by Superintendent Marie Taylor, NYP's Head of Professional Standards (PSD), was at its best characterised as unnecessarily defensive (Supt Taylor was named in press reports, curiously, as "Shirley", not Marie). The Civil Disclosure Unit falls under the remit of PSD and, it follows, Supt Taylor. This is one of a number of troubling aspects of this request and the internal reviewer needs not only to demonstrate independence from the disclosure officer finalising the request but also from Supt Taylor, who is plainly conflicted.

9. Dave Jones made a mysterious 'moonlight flit' on April 9th, 2018 after notifying the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner that he was retiring, with two years of his contract still to run. He submitted a sick note that covered the three-month notice period he was required to serve. The misconduct hearing, at which he was required to give evidence, commenced on 16th April, 2018. The last day Mr Jones was on duty as a serving police officer was 29th March, 2018. A detail confirmed by the present chief constable, Lisa Winward, to a fellow journalist (I have been sighted in that correspondence). Further segments of the hearing took place in July and September, 2018. The latter at which closing submissions were made by counsel for the Cheshire PCC and Mr Byrne. Mr Beggs' submissions were grounded in a 232 page document, issued to members of the press corps, as well as Members of the Panel, chaired by Rachel Cernow QC. In that document was an unredacted copy of the investigation report. The Panel, as was widely reported at the time, reserved judgment at the end of closing speeches.

10. The sick note effectively prevented Mr Jones from giving evidence at Mr Byrne's misconduct hearing and facing what was likely to be searching examinations by two of the country's most able, and feared courtroom advocates. There is still very considerable public interest in uncovering the true circumstances of the, as yet, unexplained departure of Mr Jones, and the residual issues surrounding it. Not least, the typically misleading statement issued by the North Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner, concerning the bizarre departure of Mr Jones, on the very day the misconduct hearing commenced. At least two BBC journalists are seized of this particular matter, to my certain knowledge. I have corresponded in detail with both. The disclosure of the investigation report, as part of the instant request, is key to unlocking a truth that both NYP and its Police Commissioner are, seemingly, determined to conceal. Disclosure to the wider world of the much criticised investigation report, and the correspondence between the Cheshire PCC and Mr Jones are important foundations upon which to mount such an investigation that will, ultimately, enable the public to know the true reasons, and cost to the taxpayer, of Mr Jones’ sudden departure.

11. Turning to the lawfulness of relying on the exemption at Section 31 (1)(a) of the Act, it is, on any independent view, simply unsustainable. For the benefit of the wider world this is what the Act states:
"- 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,"

12. Chief constable Byrne has, as far as is known, never been investigated over a criminal offence, and it is very clear from the Terms of Reference of the investigation carried out by Mr Jones (helpfully disclosed in the finalisation of the instant request) that the investigation concerned alleged misconduct, not alleged criminal acts.

13. There is also no risk of prejudice, whatsoever, to the outcome of these proceedings by disclosing the investigation report, absent of any statements of witnesses who were granted anonymity. The page numbers and coding (witness C etc) should have been provided as part of the finalisation. It was never anticipated, by me at least, that that anonymity, if the requirement is still in place, would be breached.

14. In relying on prejudice as part of a s31(1)(a) exemption a public authority (or police force) has to demonstrate that disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice law enforcement. NYP should have set out what prejudice is envisaged – in other words, the harm that disclosure may cause. The widely accepted approach to this is set out in Hogan v Information Commissioner [2007], and summarised in the Information Commissioner’s Guidance. NYP should also have stated how likely they considered the prejudice to be – either “would” or “would be likely to”. It is absent from the finalisation. That reinforces the view that an exemption was plucked from the air without the disclosure officer understanding its implications and the thresholds to be met under the Act, appropriate Guidance or case law.

15. The Information Commissioner’s Guidance on Law enforcement (section 31) sets out that the prejudice claimed must be real, actual or of substance. NYP has made no submissions to this effect. It simply says there will be prejudice because proceedings are not concluded, and there may be an appeal. I respectfully submit that proceedings are concluded insofar as all the evidence is concerned, including the forensic and brutal dissemination of the investigation report and at least some of the correspondence between the Cheshire PCC and Mr Jones. Specifically the latter’s assurance, in writing, that he was experienced and capable in the type of task that was being asked of him. Based on the schoolboy errors in the report, that assertion by Mr Jones may turn out not to be true. A matter that would, inevitably, have been drawn out in cross-examination, one way or the other. It is my respectful submission that this is, at least, one of the reasons that NYP wish to conceal the Jones correspondence to, and from, the Cheshire PCC. There is, in my further and respectful submission, no other plausible reason why disclosure is being withheld and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with section 31(1)(a) of the Act. The internal reviewer is, accordingly, invited to deal with this matter in much more detail than has been provided so far.

16. The Guidance also says that the public authority, or police force, must be able to demonstrate a causal link between the disclosure and the harm claimed: No such link has been identified by the officer finalising the request, either in respect of the investigation report or the withheld correspondence.

17. It then goes further and sets out importance of NYP focusing on the likelihood and the consequences of disclosing the actual information in question and not treat the exemption as being absolute, an approach that NYP frequently take when finalising information requests under the Act, and one that the internal reviewer is invited to address more carefully.

18. The Guidance then deals with the public interest in maintaining an exemption. It states that this exemption, section 31(1)(a), is limited to the interests that are inherent in that exemption. So only the consequences of the harm that the exemption guards against can be considered. For example, the public interest in maintaining section 31(1)(a) - prevention of crime, could only take account of the consequences associated with the crime that would result from disclosing the requested information. Put very shortly: There is no crime to consider and the reliance on this exemption for this, and all the other reasons set out in the preceding paragraphs, is wholly misconceived.

19. The balancing test is hampered by the provision by NYP of a weblink that is ‘dead’. This is what the link returns:

“Page not found: No document matches the url '/news/news/gross-misconduct-hearing-chief-constable-simon-'
This page can be replaced with a custom 404. Check the documentation for "custom 404".
This page is intentionally left ugly ;-)”

Setting that error aside, the test is, in any event, very partially drawn and, it is my respectful submission, that it would not sustain at any independent review outside of NYP.

20. Overall, this is yet another very disappointing NYP freedom of information finalisation, where a pre-formed decision NOT to disclose has, seemingly, been made, and then necessitated the arrangement of weak, or non-existent, arguments around the decision that are, quite frankly, an embarrassment to a law enforcement agency. It has also put me to very considerable trouble, and expense, in arguing against the exemptions relied upon. More precious police resources, and public funds, will doubtless be thrown away in dealing with the internal review request (and beyond).

21. The finalisation of this request is, on any independent view, an abuse of the Act and also raises serious ethical and professional issues involving all those NYP personnel who have participated in this deceit. It also renews the spectre of the lengthy campaign perpetrated by NYP (and its PCC) to persistently vex, annoy and harass a journalist performing a vital public function as a social watchdog. This continues to cause distress and alarm - and impinge adversely on my health.

22. The College of Policing's Code of Ethics is, accordingly, engaged. As it involves, in part, a 'cover-up' of wrongdoing by the force, it is a matter that NYP’s Head of Professional Standards should, in accordance with Statutory Guidance, refer to the Independent Office for Police Conduct for a method of investigation decision. The IOPC might also consider whether the long running campaign of harassment against me, over which I have complained many times, including personally to Mr Jones, during his tenure as chief constable, is a criminal or misconduct matter.

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,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Thank you for your email, please treat this as an acknowledgement of receipt.

We are currently experiencing a very high volume of requests for information. We will endeavour to provide a response to your request as soon as we can.

Your email will be dealt with accordingly.

PLEASE NOTE: If your query is to address an urgent safeguarding concern then please redirect your enquiry to the Vulnerability Assessment Team email: [email address]<mailto:[email address]>
The Vulnerability Assessment Team is available during office hours Monday to Friday.

Civil Disclosure Unit

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk<http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/>

show quoted sections

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Good morning Mr Wilby

Thank you for your below email.

Please accept this email as acknowledgement of your request for an internal review into FOI 0691.2018-19. Your request will be processed by the Civil Disclosure Unit.

Kind regards

Sarah Saunders
Collar Number 4868
Administrative Assistant (Civil Disclosure)
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police HQ
Alverton Court
Crosby Road
Northallerton
North Yorkshire
DL6 1BF

Tel: 01609 643526

DX 68810 Northallerton 2

Committed to the Code of Ethics
Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk
Facebook: facebook.com/NorthYorkshirePolice
Twitter: twitter.com/NYorksPolice

show quoted sections

Dear Civil Disclosure,

May I please add this additional paragraph to the internal review request?

23. Further information has come to light, very recently, from a retired, very senior police office who will say:
'Dave Jones and Simon Byrne were well known to one another. They sat on the NPAS Strategic Board together and gave the appearance of being friends. Mr Jones should, clearly, have recused himself from the misconduct investigation. North Yorkshire PCC chief executive, Fraser Sampson, would have been well aware of this relationship, at the material time, due to his influence over two other Board Members: West Yorkshire Police chief constable, Dee Collins and her PCC, Mark Burns-Williamson. The minutes are in the public domain.' This is advanced as another reason why NYP is prepared to flagrantly breach the Act to conceal the failings of their former chief constable.

Quite separately to the internal review request, it may assist North Yorkshire Police to know that this information is being passed to counsel, both for Mr Keane, the Cheshire PCC and Mr Byrne. The Panel Chair, Rachel Cernow QC will also be notified.

The matter of how and why a five month investigation, involving eight officers, some very senior, with an estimated cost in excess of £100,000, came to be carried out free of charge will also now be investigated, with appropriate rigour. Against a backdrop of £1 million plus overspend in each of last three years under Mr Jones' command.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Thank you for your email, please treat this as an acknowledgement of receipt.

We are currently experiencing a very high volume of requests for information. We will endeavour to provide a response to your request as soon as we can.

Your email will be dealt with accordingly.

PLEASE NOTE: If your query is to address an urgent safeguarding concern then please redirect your enquiry to the Vulnerability Assessment Team email: [email address]<mailto:[email address]>
The Vulnerability Assessment Team is available during office hours Monday to Friday.

Civil Disclosure Unit

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk<http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/>

show quoted sections

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

Good morning,

Confirming that NYP have received your further email, and it has been logged under reference IR 692.2018-19,

Kind Regards

Liz

Liz Fryar
Collar Number 4437
Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually.

www.northyorkshire.police.uk

Committed to the Code of Ethics

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

show quoted sections

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

Para 23 is an ADDITION to the internal review request dated 3rd November, 2018 and logged by NYP under ref: 0691.2017.18. It comprised 22 paragraphs. Unsurprisingly, para 23 is a continuation. It should, therefore, be added to 0691.

It is NOT a new request and, accordingly, the creation of the reference 0692.2017.18 was entirely unnecessary and should be detached from my name.

Please confirm, by return, that the necessary adjustments have been made.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Thank you for your email, please treat this as an acknowledgement of receipt.

We are currently experiencing a very high volume of requests for information. We will endeavour to provide a response to your request as soon as we can.

Your email will be dealt with accordingly.

PLEASE NOTE: If your query is to address an urgent safeguarding concern then please redirect your enquiry to the Vulnerability Assessment Team email: [email address]<mailto:[email address]>
The Vulnerability Assessment Team is available during office hours Monday to Friday.

Civil Disclosure Unit

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk<http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/>

show quoted sections

Fryar, Liz, North Yorkshire Police

Good morning,

Apologies, the reference 692.2018-19 was given in error - I can confirm this additional question was added to the existing internal review (reference 691.2018-19).

Kind Regards

Liz

Liz Fryar
Collar Number 4437
Legal Officer – Civil Disclosure
Joint Corporate Legal Services
North Yorkshire Police

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number. If using my collar number please state each number individually.

www.northyorkshire.police.uk

Committed to the Code of Ethics

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

show quoted sections

Dear North Yorkshire Police,

Having received no response to the internal review request made on 5th November, 2018, a section 50 complaint has been lodged with the Information Commissioner.

Given that this is the third such complaint within the past week, I will renew my call for the Civil Disclosure Unit to be placed in the Commissioner's monitoring scheme.

These three requests are the only ones made to NYP/NYPCC for almost two years. All three breached section 10 and 17 of the Act. Similarly, all three have failed to have regard to either section 45 of the Act, or the Commissioner's guidance in respect of internal reviews.

The Police and Crime Panel, who are due to hear a report on CDU/FOIA performance at their next meeting in January, 2019 (an attempt by Fraser Sampson, the NYPCC chief executive, to have the report heard in private at the 19th November, 2018 meeting was defeated by the Panel) will also receive a report from me concerning these three requests, and what I consider to be the motivation for the delays.

The College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice will also be drawn the Panel's attention and, in particular, the lawful responsibilities of both the chief constable and her PCC, in the finalisation of information requests under the Act.

For the avoidance of doubt, my focus within those reports to the ICO and NYPCP, and in an article that is to be published on the topic, will be on the high level policy decisions that appear to surround all my requests, and not on the hard-working, under-resourced disclosure officers with whom I always seek to maintain a cordial and professional relationship.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Civil Disclosure, North Yorkshire Police

Thank you for your email, please treat this as an acknowledgement of receipt.

We are currently experiencing a very high volume of requests for information. We will endeavour to provide a response to your request as soon as we can.

Your email will be dealt with accordingly.

PLEASE NOTE: If your query is to address an urgent safeguarding concern then please redirect your enquiry to the Vulnerability Assessment Team email: [email address]<mailto:[email address]>
The Vulnerability Assessment Team is available during office hours Monday to Friday.

Civil Disclosure Unit

Web: www.northyorkshire.police.uk<http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/>

show quoted sections

Ward, Katie (Lawyer), North Yorkshire Police

2 Attachments

Good Afternoon

 

Please see attached response to your internal review.

 

Kind Regards

 

Katie Ward

Collar Number 3820

Police Lawyer (Civil Disclosure)

Joint Corporate Legal Services

North Yorkshire Police HQ

Alverton Court

Crosby Road

Northallerton

North Yorkshire

DL6 1BF

 

DX 68810 Northallerton 2

 

Direct Dial Office 01609 643526

Fax 01609 642622

 

Dial 101, press option 2 and ask for me by my full name or collar number.
If using my collar number please state each number individually.

 

[1]www.northyorkshire.police.uk

 

Committed to the Code of Ethics

 

THIS EMAIL AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) MAY BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL PROFESSIONAL
PRIVILEGE - PLEASE DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT TO ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT
ASKING JOINT CORPORATE LEGAL SERVICES

 

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/