Martin McGartland

29 April 2017

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

This request relates to applications made to IPCC by police to disapply complaint/s . I would like the following information;

Q1: How the IPCC deal with such applications. I would like details A to Z of how such applications are dealt with from start to finish. This should also include; a) number of IPCC staff who are involved with case, all decisions. b) how the IPCC record all decisions, rationale, explanation in case/s. c) what is the staff level (casework managers, team leaders etc) of different staff who deal with cases to disapply, who make decisions, record rationale explanation in such case/s . d) what forms, records or documents are IPCC staff required to complete when dealing with dis applications. Where and how do the IPCC store all of the information (name of all IPCC systems) relating to this part of the request.

Q2: I would like the IPCC to disclose blank copies of all of the forms, documents (showing lay-out, details to be included etc) that are required to be completed relating to Q1 of this request.

Q3: A copy of IPCC staff manual, handbook which covers (deals with) how staff deal with dis applications are dealt with etc.

Q4: I would also like details of what powers, if any, the IPCC have relating to how the investigation is carried out, dealt with by the force after IPCC has refused to disapply complaint/s. Can the IPCC direct, order the police to investigate the complaint in a particular way etc.

Q5: A copy of guidance, rules policy etc that relates to proportionate Investigation/s by police and IPCC which also includes E.g. how the IPCC define a proportionate investigation, the type of complaints which can and cannot be dealt with by way of proportionate investigation.

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

07 June 2017

Dear IPCC,

I would like you to carry out a review of the request. You have not included any evidence to demonstrate that my request is vexatious, that I'm involved in some type of campaign towards the IPCC. You have simply included wild and misleading claims within your reply. In the absence of substantive evidence in support of the IPCC's claim that this request is vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA, the IPCC would not be entitled to rely upon section 14(1) of the FOIA to refuse to comply with this request.

The FOIA does not define the term vexatious, but it was discussed before the Upper Tribunal in the case of the Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield[2012] UKUT 440 (AAC), (28 January 2013).

In that case, the Upper Tribunal concluded that the term ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure”. The Tribunal made clear that the decision of whether a request is vexatious must be based on the circumstances surrounding the request.

The Dransfield judgement proposed four broad issues that public authorities should bear in mind when considering whether FOI requests are vexatious:
* the burden of meeting the request;
* the motive of the requester;
* the value or serious purpose of the request; and
* any harassment or distress caused.

The Upper Tribunal cautioned that these considerations were not meant to be exhaustive. Rather, it stressed
“... the importance of adopting a holistic and broad approach to the determination of whether a request is
vexatious or not, emphasising the attributes of manifest unreasonableness, irresponsibility and, especially where there is a previous course of dealings, the lack of proportionality that typically characterise vexatious request.” (paragraph 45).

The Information Commissioner states that the key question for public authorities to consider when determining if a request is vexatious is whether the request is likely to cause disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress. The public authority should take into account the background and history of the request where this is relevant. The Information Commissioner has also identified a number of indicators which may be useful in identifying vexatious requests. These are set out in her published guidance on vexatious requests.

The fact that a request contains one or more of these indicators will not necessarily mean that it must be vexatious. All the circumstances of a case will need to be considered in reaching a judgement as to whether a request is vexatious.

I will also rely on the Information Commission's "Dealing with vexatious requests (section 14)"; https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-wi...

I have at no point ever previously requested this information and have made a legitimate request for it so that I (other members of the public) can understand how the IPCC, it's staff deal with such cases (including a number of my own cases). There is very little (or no) information about this on IPCC's website nor in public (on net etc) to help public understand. In fact the IPCC have revoved their Case Officer Manual from public domain.

Campaign:
The wild claim being made by the IPCC of a "campaign" can also be shown to be false. There is no evidence of a "campaign" and the IPCC have not included any evidence to demonstrate that there is and or that this request is vexatious,

I refer the reader to paragraph 92 of this ICO document; https: //ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-with-vexatious-requests.pdf which states; "The authority will need to have sufficient evidence to substantiate any claim of a linkbetween the requests before it can go on to consider whether section 14(1) applies on these grounds. Some examples of the types of evidence an authority might cite in support of its case are:
* The requests are identical or similar.
* They have received email correspondence in which other requesters have been copied in or mentioned.
* There is an unusual pattern of requests, for example a large number have been submitted within a relatively short space of time.
* A group’s website makes an explicit reference to a campaign against the authority."

This request can not be vexatious in the sense of being a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA?” (Dransfield, para 43).

Guidance and illustrations
Judge Wikeley offered illustrative guidance under four headings (see the discussion at paras 28-39 of Dransfield). At para 28, he said this:
“Such misuse of the FOIA procedure may be evidenced in a number of different ways. It may be helpful to consider the question of whether a request is truly vexatious by considering four broad issues or themes – (1) the burden (on the public authority and its staff); (2) the motive (of the requester); (3) the value or serious purpose (of the request) and (4) any harassment or distress (of and to staff). However, these four considerations and the discussion that follows are not intended to be exhaustive, nor are they meant to create an alternative formulaic check-list. It is important to remember that Parliament has expressly declined to define the term “vexatious”. Thus the observations that follow should not be taken as imposing any prescriptive and all encompassing definition upon an inherently flexible concept which can take many different forms.”

Background and context can be highly relevant. As to burden, questions of volume, breadth, pattern and duration of requests may be relevant. Note, however, that volume alone might not be decisive. Furthermore, an individual request can be vexatious.

While FOIA is axiomatically motive blind, “the proper application of section 14 cannot side-step the question of the underlying rationale or justification for the request” (Dransfield, para 34).

Series of requests can sometimes start out innocuously, but fall into “vexatiousness by drift” (Dransfield, para 37).

As to serious purpose or value, “the weight to be attached to that value or serious purpose may diminish over time. For example, if it is truly the case that the underlying grievance has been exhaustively considered and addressed, then subsequent requests (especially where there is “vexatiousness by drift”) may not have a continuing justification” (Dransfield, para 38).

Judge Wikeley confirmed that the term ‘vexatious’ here applies to the request, not the requester (Dransfield, para 19

In the Deputy Director Operations (Mr Ford) letter of 30 May 2017 he wrote; " We have considered, therefore, weather your purpose in making the request could justify the resources that would have to be committed to answering it." He also states; "I have also noted from your previous correspondence that your requests are often motivated by your belief that the IPCC is actively engaged in obstructing and misleading you and that you have persisted in this belief despite the very significant amount of information we have already disclosed to you." The information, documents that I have requested would be freely available to the IPCC and would take little of no effort to deal with the request. Mr Ford has not given any details at all regards his claims. However, in the absence of any evidence I am not able to comment. What I will say is I stand by any comments I have made to the IPCC in the past.

I would remind Mr Ford and the IPCC of what Judge Wikeley confirmed that the term ‘vexatious’ here applies to the request, not the requester (Dransfield, para 19 AND what the ICO state in their advice;

(Application of section 14(1) section 12; "It is important to remember that section 14(1) can only be
applied to the request itself, and not the individual who submits it. An authority cannot, therefore, refuse a request on the grounds that the requester himself is vexatious. Similarly, an authority cannot simply refuse a new request solely on the basis that it has classified previous requests from the same individual as vexatious."; https://ico.org.uk/media/1198/dealing-wi...

I also refer the IPCC to section 59 and 60 of IPCC advice which states; "The requester’s past pattern of behaviour may also be a relevant consideration. For instance, if the authority’s experience of dealing with his previous requests suggests that he won’t be satisfied with any response and will submit numerous follow up enquiries no matter what information is supplied, then this evidence could strengthen any argument that responding to the current request will impose a disproportionate burden on the authority.
(60.) However, the context and history may equally weaken the argument that a request is vexatious. For example, it might indicate that the requester had a reasonable justification for their making their request, and that because of this the public authority should accept more of a burden or detrimental impact
than might otherwise be the case."

The Commissioner’s guidance makes clear that section 14(1) can only be applied to the request itself, and not to the individual who submits it. An authority cannot, therefore, refuse a request on the grounds that the requester himself is vexatious. Similarly, an authority cannot simply refuse a new request solely on the basis that it has classified previous requests from the same individual as vexatious.

Any claim by the IPCC that this request is vexatious not only baseless but the IPCC have not produced any evidence so show that it is. The IPCC are publicly funded, tasked to hold the police to account on behalf of the public are expected to be open and transparent.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Dear Phil Johnston,

Could you please let me have a reply relating to the review.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland