We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Sarah please sign in and let everyone know.

IOPC Legal Services - perverting the course of justice

We're waiting for Sarah to read recent responses and update the status.

Dear Independent Office for Police Conduct,

A solicitor has a duty to act with integrity and uphold the rule of law and proper administration of justice (they have not only a duty to their client).

An IOPC in-house solicitor responded to a pre-action protocol letter before action dated 26 Sept 2019 (https://tinyurl.com/yykbh6q4) spuriously stating at paragraphs 33 & 34 the following:

IOPC's response to pre-action protocol https://tinyurl.com/y64ugboq

" Limitation

33. The Civil Procedure Rules (“CPR”) governing judicial review claims states that a claim form must be filed with the court promptly and in any event, no later than 3 months after the grounds upon which the claim is based first arose (CPR 54.5). The IOPC’s decisions you seek to challenge are dated 14 December 2018 and 25 April 2019. The three month time limit to challenge this decision has long passed. You are therefore time barred from pursuing a judicial review claim.

34. You fail to provide a reason as to the delay therefore the IOPC is firmly of the view that there is no reasonable justification for the delay and that your claim is time barred. Consequently, if proceedings are issued then the IOPC will submit that the claim is time barred and that permission be refused. "

Q1. Why does the IOPC's in-house solicitor believe it is within her jurisdiction to involve herself with whether or not permission is granted by the court for an extension to the time limits within which a claim is made for judicial review?

Q2. Whose permission does the IOPC's in-house solicitor believe is required for an extension of time within which a claim is made for judicial review?

Q3. To whom does the IOPC's in-house solicitor believe the reasons should be provided for the delay?

Yours faithfully,

Sarah

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

1 Attachment

Dear Requester

We have received your request for information via the 'WhatDoTheyKnow' website.

Section 8(1)(b) of the FOIA requires that a request for information includes the real name of the requester otherwise the request is deemed invalid. Guidance from the Information Commissioner’s Office stipulates that, for a request to be valid, the requester must provide enough of their real name to give anyone reading the request a reasonable indication of their identity. This guidance goes on to say that a first name or surname provided in isolation, or a set of initials, will not be sufficient.

Additionally, given that your request appears to have a personal context, and due to similarities in style and nature with other requests we have received, we have reason to suspect that 'Sarah' is a pseudonym.

Before we can progress this request, and solely for the purposes of clarification, we therefore require your full name and proof of your identity so that we can be satisfied that this is in fact a legitimate request for information.

Guidance is attached that outlines the type of documents that you may provide to verify your identity. You should use a personal email address to send proof of identity and quote IOPC reference 1008010.

Once you have provided proof of your identity, we will be happy to progress your request.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) PO Box 473 Sale Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data. We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

show quoted sections

Dear !Request Info,

The Information Commissioner considers it good practice to respond to a request from an applicant whom the public body suspects has submitted it under a pseudonym (unless there is a valid reasons not to do so). A requester would only wish to hide their identity if he wanted his own personal data to circumvent paying the fee that public bodies sometimes charge for complying with a Subject Access Request (SAR). This information does not fall in a category of personal information and would be considered by the Commissioner in this case to be good practice to respond to the request.

Yours sincerely,

Sarah

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IOPC, your email and any attachments will be assessed, logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to prepare the response.

FOI & DPA Team

!Request Info, Independent Office for Police Conduct

Dear Requester

As explained in our previous email, we will be happy to progress your request once you provide proof of your identity.

Yours sincerely

FOI and DPA Team
Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC)
PO Box 473
Sale
Manchester
M33 0BW
Tel: 0300 020 0096
www.policeconduct.gov.uk 
Follow us on Twitter at: @policeconduct
Find out how we handle your personal data.
We now regularly publish practical advice and guidance for handling complaints in our magazine FOCUS

show quoted sections

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Sarah please sign in and let everyone know.