Martin McGartland

7th January 2017

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

This request is for all recorded information regards following;

The Home Affairs Committee (HAC) have included details within a report, document concerning the IPCC and the "estimated cost" for an independent investigation based on an average investigation. The HAC document was published a number of years ago and it states;

29. "The IPCC provided us with an estimated cost for an independent investigation based on an average investigation. Some independent investigations may cost as little as £45,000 while more complex investigations can reach up to £300,000. The figures provided for managed and supervised investigations relate only to the IPCC cost and do not take account of the majority of costs which fall to the appropriate authority, usually the relevant police force. Mode of investigation, Illustrative cost (incurred by the IPCC) Independent £120,000 Managed £14,000, Supervised £3,000 "

The full details can be found on this page link; http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

I would like to know;

1, The cost ( estimated cost ) for an independent investigation as of 2016/17?

2, What type of rocord system/s is used to calculate all costs, amounts spent on each independent investigation?

3, Who at the IPCC has responsibility for the funding of independent investigation?

4, Do any Police forces pay towards or the full costs of independent investigations? (if they do, please supply full details)

5, Are there any circumstances (including exceptional circumstances) whereby the IPCC can apply for additional funding (or where additional funding is offered, paid) from Home Office or any other state body regards independent investigations? If there are, please supply full deails.

6, When the IPCC are conducting an independent investigation concerning complainant/s who have already had many years of involvement with them (and also the Police) and when
there is already a very low level (or even zero level ) of trust, how do the IPCC deal with such cases, how would they handle such an independent investigation. For instance, is there an option available to Commissioners or IPCC to refer such cases to independent third parties?

7, During an independent investigation, are Commissioners and investigators under a legal obligation to investigate all lines of enquiry, particularly where there is potential issues and allegations of fraud, dishonesty by police officers and where there is compelling evidence of police making false accounts and allegations?

8, Where there is a potential conflict of interest, involving the Home Office, other state body, how is this dealt with by the IPCC?

9. How do the IPCC create and set terms of reference for independent investigation/s. Is it normal practice for those to be set by IPCC and or a Commissioner without any input or involvement of complainant/s.

(i) How do the IPCC deal with cases where the complainant/s have expressed their concerns with the IPCC's, Commissioner's terms of reference of independent investigation/s, do they work with the Complainant/s, do they allow Complainant/s to have some input and or agreement, are the terms of reference rewritten or amended in such circumstances?

10, When the Police carry out investigations they are required to follow IPCC statutory guidance etc. Please supply full details of all policies, procedures, legal requirements, guidance, investigation handbook/s, manual/s etc that IPCC Commissioners and IPCC investigators are required to follow when conducting independent investigations?

I would like the IPCC to disclose copies of all policies, procedures, legislation, guidance, investigation handbook/s, manual/s , all other requirements etc (concerning 9 above).

11, Has there been any legal action taken against the IPCC by Complainant/s, members of public regarding independent investigations during the last 5 years (between 30 December 2011 / 30 December 2016) relating to any issues, allegded failures by IPCC staff, investigators or Commissioners? (if there have, how many, what was the outcome of each)

(i) Have the IPCC, for whatever reason, in the last 5 years agreed to reinvestigate any of their independent investigations in part / in full because of any issues relating to above. If they have, how many, what were the reasons for each of the partial and or full re investigations.

(ii) I would like to know;
* All, any damages, compensation paid in each case;
* Breakdown of all court costs for each case;
* Breakdown of all legal costs (internal, external) in each case (including those paid to barrister and solicitors);

I am not requesting any personal or LPP information, just the details of all cases, breakdown of amounts paid by IPCC

12, I would like the IPCC to disclose copies of all their independent investigations reports for the last 5 years.

Yours faithfully,
Martin McGartland

Dear !FOI Requests,

I am requesting an internal revew on the grounds that;

1. The request is not vexatious ;

2. That there is a public interest in the information sought due to issues of trust by public so far as investigations against the police are concern, the high costs to the tax payer. I understand that an IPCC independent investigation can cost between £30,000 to £80,000. Others can cost well over £100,000

3. The IPCC are claiming that I am behind some type of [campaign] against them. Not only is this untrue, there is no evidence to show that this is the case. The ICO has stated: "In previous decisions the Commissioner has acknowledged that it is human nature that the making of a request will frequently be driven by a particular agenda or vested interest. Disagreement with a public authority’s actions, however, does not necessarily connote that a related request is vexatious. Nor does the fact that there is a fractious relationship between the applicant and public authority. In this case, there is nothing in the way that the requests were framed that indicated the complainant was merely intending to harass or vex the..." (see below)

4. Regards the part of my request for copies of all independent reports. It is my understanding that the IPCC publish almost all of those reports. Those reports will be very easy for the IPCC to disclose, would be freely available to them. The request, in full, is nothing other than a genuine attempt to access information which is in the public interest. There is nothing which I have requested within my request which the IPCC could point to which could show that it is intending to harass or vex...

I would refer the IPCC to the following:

Legal authority (for example in the case of Attorney General v Barker) indicated that the hallma
rk of vexatious proceedings was they had little or no basis and whatever the intention may be the
effect is to subject the Defendant to inconvenience, harassment and expense out of all proportion to gain.
We would submit that such reques ts fall fairly and squarely within that bracket.

Although section 14(1) is not qualified by the public interest test, the Upper Tribunal in Dransfield expressed the view that it may be appropriate to ask the following question: Does the request have a value or serious purpose in terms of the objective public interest in the information sought? This goes to the heart
of whether a request is proportionate and justified in the circumstances.

When assessing the purpose and value of a request, the Commissioner’s guidance cautions it will be rare that a public authority will be able to produce evidence that their only motivation is to cause disruption or
annoyance (paragraph 47). The Commissioner goes on say in the following paragraph that if the re
quest does not obviously serve to further the requester’s stated aims or if the information requested will
be of little wider benefit to the public, then this will restrict its value, even where there is clearly a serious purpose behind it. 37.eighing up the objective public interest considerations, the Commissioner considers that two principal factors exist which support a finding that the request is vexatious. Firstly, the information being pursued relates to a highly personalised matter and there is nothing to suggest that disclosure would be of any real benefit to the wider public. Secondly, the right of recourse through the courts exists in order to allow a person to seek justice by mens of an independent arbiter. The Commissioner accepts that unreas
onable persistence may be an indicator of vexatiousness, most obviously characterised by a requester
attempting to reopen an issue which has already been comprehensively addressed by the public authority, or otherwise subjected to some form of independent scrutiny. 38.In the view of the Commissioner, these
factors do hold significant weight in the context of the test of vexatiousness. She is also mindful however
of the complainant’s assertion that the requests were designed to capture information that went beyond
the records seen as part of the legal proceedings. Whether or not any such information is held, on this
reading the making of the requests can be seen as a genuine attempt to learn more about how the College’s legal position developed – giving the requests value, even if there was unlikely to be any substantial public
interest in the information. 39. In previous decisions the Commissioner has acknowledged that it is
human nature that the making of a request will frequently be driven by a particular agenda or vested interest. Disagreement with a public authority’s actions, however, does not necessarily connote that a related request is vexatious. Nor does the fact that there is a fractious relationship between the applicant an
d public authority. In this case, there is nothing in the way that the requests were framed that indicated
the complainant was merely intending to harass or vex the College. For example, they do not contain any in
temperate or tendentious language.

I will rely on the full content of the following document regarding this request; https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

20 April 2017

Dear Gemma Thomas,

I would like the IPCC to carry our a FURTHER review of this request due to the exemptions being relied upon not to disclose the information I have requested. Regards Section 14(1) of the Act, the test, for a request to be deemed as 'vexatious' is “a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of FOIA” (Information Commissioner v Devon County Council & Dransfield [2012] UKUT 440 (AAC)). The instant request does not go anywhere near reaching that threshold.

Judge Wikeley in Dransfield further held that "(classifying a request as vexatious) must not be used to avoid being held to account, or simply because the public authority faces a request the objective reason for which is not immediately self-evident".

Turning to your refusual to answer the request under section 12 of the FOIA, the time you claim it would take to answer etc. I have refined my request to the following extent to;

1. A search of all paper files and extraction of information which is relevant to the FOIA request, i.e. estimated at 8 hours.

2. A search of all electronic files (estimated at 4 hours)

3. Identify and extract information relevant to FOIA request from initial searches of electronic files (estimated at 4 hours)

That would then bring the FOIA request within the 18 hours S12 overcost limit.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

23 May 2017

Dear !FOI Requests,

Could I please have an update on this review.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland

Martin McGartland

23 May 2017

Dear Gemma Thomas,

I have made a complaint to the ICO regarding this request.

Yours sincerely,

Martin McGartland