Maddie McCann case

research-worldwide made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

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 refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

research-worldwide

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please will you send me all the information that you hold, and that Leicestershire Constabulary did not hand over to the Portuguese Police Authorities (the PJ)since 2007 on the Madeleine McCann case. This to include the all laboratory results.

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

research-worldwide

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012080000566
I respond in connection with your request for information dated 03/08/2012
which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/08/2012.
 I note you seek access to the following information:

Please will you send me all the information that you hold, and that
Leicestershire Constabulary did not hand over to the Portuguese     Police
Authorities (the PJ)since 2007 on the Madeleine McCann case.    
This to include the all laboratory results.    

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on telephone number 020 7230 4019 quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

research-worldwide

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Tappas 9 witness statements : FOI for two sets of statements :

We have requested the Witness Statements of Mr and Mrs Payne, these statements are referred to in DC
Marshall's letter and are said not to be included in the PJ files. Please include the witness statement changes said to be made in
November 2007 by Dr Russell O'Brien & Jane Tanner who contacted police to "correct" their statements.http://http://t.co/Ph1aX8E2

We can not accept a FOI rejection, without proof that these statements were handed over from Leicestershire Constabulary to yourselves, the Met police.

Yours faithfully,

research-worldwide

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

I am currently out of the office.
For FoI or Exceptional Cases enquiries please contact the Compliance Unit
on 0207 230 1380.
email to: sc&[email address]
Thanks.

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

research-worldwide

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Apologies this is the Dr O'Brien and Tanner link to their changes to their Witness Statement :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mcc...

Yours faithfully,

research-worldwide

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Sir,
Could you confirm that this is a new Freedom of Information request?
thanks

Peter Royan-Posse | Case Investigation Officer | Specialist Crime & Operations | Exceptional Case & FoIA Compliance Unit
Address 902 Tower Block, New Scotland Yard, Broadway, London, SW1H 0BG
MetPhone 64019 | Telephone 020 7230 4019 | Fax 020 7230 0058 | email [email address]

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

show quoted sections

research-worldwide

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I have two FOI to Met Police: one for all information that you hold on the McCann case, including the laboratory results, that the Leicestershire Constabulary did not hand over to the Portuguese Police (the PJ ) and the other is for the four witness statements of Dr & Mrs Payne and the later altered witness statements of Dr Russel O'Brien and Jane Tanner.

Apologies, the reason for this is that Leicestershire Constabulary maintain that they handed this information over to Met Police for the McCann case review. We query this, as if they did not hand this information, together with the laboratory results, over to the Portuguese Police in 2007, what proof do the public have, that they have now handed it over to you, the Met Police, for the case review?

Yours faithfully,

research-worldwide

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012080000566

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 03/08/2012
which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/08/2012.
 I note you seek access to the following information:

Please will you send me all the information that you hold, and that
Leicestershire Constabulary did not hand over to the Portuguese     Police
Authorities (the PJ)since 2007 on the Madeleine McCann case.    
This to include the all laboratory results.    
EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.
NB Leicestershire Constabulary has not withheld any information relating
to this case.

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I
am not required by statute to release the information requested. This
letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the
parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can
be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities.
A public authority in receipt of a request must if permitted, confirm if
the requested information is held by that public authority and if so then
communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions, which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.  

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set
out by the Act.  
Where I have been unable to provide the requested information to you I
have explained my decision in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is a request for documents relating to an ongoing review of evidence
which contains personal information and elements which would impact on Law
Enforcement and International Relations and is fully exempt under sections
27(1)(2)(3), 31(1)(a)(b)(c), & 40(2)(a)(b) (3)(a)(b) of the Act.

In respect of each document: constituents of information attract Section
27 other constituents attract Section 31 and other constituents attract
Section 40 of the Act.

It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 27, 31 & 40 to the
same pieces of information although all of these exemptions may apply to
each document.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred
to in this response.

Under Sections 27(1)(2)(3) and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act, Public
Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would, or
would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon International Relations
and Law Enforcement.
 
These exemptions can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be
caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test
(PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public
Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.  

Section 27 International Relations

Evidence of Harm - International Relations

It would not be in the best interests of the public to possibly disrupt
relations between this country and another due to information being
released in response to this request which may not give the whole picture
and may in fact give a misleading view of events.  

Public Interest Test - International Relations

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole.
It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may
compromise the MPS's relationship with international Police Services.

International Relations Public interest considerations favouring
disclosure

There is a public interest in this high profile review and disclosure
could provide the public with an insight into how international Police
Services cooperate.

International Relations Public interest considerations favouring
non-disclosure

The British Government develops and maintains a robust relationship with
other nation states which can promote mutual interest in trade, defence,
environmental issues, human rights and the fight against terrorism and
international crime.
 
Release of this information by the MPS may prejudice relations between the
UK and international courts as the disclosure of any information that was
provided in confidence would impact negatively on international relations
with the Portuguese authorities.

There is also the prospect that should the British Government release
information which was detrimental to its relationship with one country,
other states or international organisations would reconsider their
affinity with the UK.
This would consequently affect the UK's international abilities relating
to its overseas citizens, consular and commercial interests.

It could also influence the sharing of information provided during the
course of political and diplomatic exchanges.

Our decision is that the public interest favours withholding this
information.

Section 31  Law Enforcement

In order for the exemption provided under 31(1) to be engaged in this case
the MPS must show that disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely
to, prejudice law enforcement functions, namely 31(1)(a) the prevention
and detection of crimes and section 31(1)(b) the apprehension or
prosecution of offenders.  
In this case this exemption has been applied as disclosure of the
information requested would prejudice areas within law enforcement such as
the detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.  

Evidence of Harm - Law Enforcement

The MPS is charged with enforcing the law, preventing and detecting crime.
 
Modern-day policing is intelligence led and information of this nature
needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity as it could have a
detrimental effect on the operational effectiveness of this review.

Public Interest Test - Law Enforcement.

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise the service's
ability to accomplish its core function of law enforcement.

Law Enforcement - Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

This information could be a useful deterrent to those with criminal intent
as the abilities and capabilities of the MPS who are charged with
enforcing the law by preventing and detecting crime and protecting the
communities we serve will be apparent.  
There is also a public interest in the transparency of policing
operations.  
Disclosure could provide the public with an understanding that public
funds are being used appropriately.

Law Enforcement - Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and
would also hinder this review and any future reviews or investigations
into similar incidents.
In addition the release of any information that may be used to generate an
investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future
proceedings.
 
Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational
information into the public domain which would enable those with the time,
capacity and inclination to try and map strategies used by the MPS.
 
Additionally MPS resources and its ability to operate effectively and
efficiently would directly be affected as this information can be
manipulated by those with criminal intent to operate in those areas.

Release of this information may adversely affect the public's willingness
to come forward if they know how the MPS gathers intelligence on such
matters and how witness statements are garnered and assured.

The disclosure of some of this information to the public by the MPS would
undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS and would furthermore
impact on the trust of witnesses in making statements in the future.

Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental affect reducing the
quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromise this
review.

Section 40 (2) & (3) - Personal Information

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would identify any living
individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA).
I have applied this exemption in that the names of the individuals
identified in this information constitutes personal data which would, if
released, be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers
must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data
must be processed fairly and lawfully.
I consider that the release of the names of officers/staff and/or other
persons that are recorded within the requested material constitutes
personal data.
The release of this information would be unfair as the persons concerned
would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this
information publicly available.

In reaching my decision I have in each case, given due regard to Condition
one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA.
 
Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether
consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that
consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate
processing of that data.

Having considered both conditions I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.  
This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is
applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure.
There is accordingly no requirement to consider whether release of
information is in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would
result from disclosure.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred
to in this response.

Balancing Test

On balance, if disclosed there is the likelihood that the integrity of
this MPS review could be compromised and individual's safety put at risk.
It cannot be justified that the public's interest would be served in
releasing this information if either of these aspects were to be
jeopardised in any way.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
 I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh disclosing this information.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 020 7230 4019 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Peter Royan-Posse
Case Investigation Officer

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:
(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
        (a) states the fact,
        (b) specifies the exemption in question, and
        (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the
exemption applies.

27 International Relations
(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to, prejudice-
 (a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State,
(b) relations between the United Kingdom and any international
organisation or international court,
(c) the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, or
(d) the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of its interests
abroad.
(2) Information is also exempt information if it is confidential
information obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or from an
international organisation or international court.
(3) For the purposes of this section, any information obtained from a
State, organisation or court is confidential at any time while the terms
on which it was obtained require it to be held in confidence or while the
circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the State,
organisation or court to expect that it will be so held.

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,
(b)the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c)the administration of justice,

40 Personal information.
(2)Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-
(a)it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b)either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
(3)The first condition is-
(a)in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the M1Data Protection
Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of the public
otherwise than under this Act would contravene-
(i)any of the data protection principles, or
(ii)section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and
(b)in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of the
M2Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held by public
authorities) were disregarded.

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

research-worldwide

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I am not going thru each point that you make to deny FOI, but in sum:

It seems very hard to believe that information on a dead girl can be denied, in part, due to damaging international relations!?

That you quote Data Protection on the basis that somebody is alive for FOI rejection!?

I therefore, have to ask: was Dr Gerry McCann consulted in any way ,over Dr David Kelly in 2003? The period includes Dr David Kelly 's death ?

Yours faithfully,

research-worldwide

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

I am currently out of the office.
For FoI or Exceptional Cases enquiries please contact the Compliance Unit
on 0207 230 1380.
email to: sc&[email address]
Thanks.

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed],
Your question regarding Dr Kelly will be treated as a new Freedom of Information request.
If you have information regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann please contact your local Police.
yours sincerely,

Peter Royan-Posse | Case Investigation Officer | Specialist Crime & Operations | Early Deletion & FoIA Compliance Unit
Address 902 Tower Block, New Scotland Yard, Broadway, London, SW1H 0BG
MetPhone 64019 | Telephone 020 7230 4019 | Fax 020 7230 0058 | email [email address]

NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012080003457
I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/08/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

I therefore, have to ask: was Dr Gerry McCann consulted in any way    
,over Dr David Kelly in 2003? The period includes Dr David Kelly 's    
death ?

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

This Freedom of Information Request will be dealt with by Catherine
Carrington.

Internal Review Reference No: 2012080003480

An Internal Review will take place in respect of Freedom of Information
Request Reference No: 2012080000566 in which you sought access to the
following information:

Please will you send me all the information that you hold, and that
Leicestershire Constabulary did not hand over to the Portuguese Police
Authorities (the PJ) since 2007 on the Madeleine McCann case.  This to
include the all laboratory results.

The Internal Review will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
timescale of 20 working days.

The Internal Review will be conducted by

Brian Wilson
FOI Complaints Officer
0207 161 3705

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Catherine Carrington on telephone number 020 7230 9962 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Carrington
SC&O Information Manager
Freedom of Information Compliance
Specialist Crime & Operations (SC&O)
Metropolitan Police Service
020 7230 9962
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I am waiting for a reply from the Met - 20 working days - should be received by 1 October 2012 and an internal review.

Yours faithfully,

research-worldwide

research-worldwide left an annotation ()

Reply due 1 October 2012

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012080003457

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/08/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),         I am not going thru each
point that you make to deny FOI, but in     sum:         It seems very
hard to believe that information on a dead girl can     be denied, in
part, due to damaging international relations!?         That you quote
Data Protection on the basis that somebody is alive     for FOI
rejection!?         I therefore, have to ask: was Dr Gerry McCann
consulted in any way     ,over Dr David Kelly in 2003? The period includes
Dr David Kelly 's     death ?

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working
days to respond to a request for information

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently trying to establish what information the MPS holds, if any, and
whether it can be retrieved within the cost threshold as laid out under
Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act).

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 22/10/2012.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Carrington
SC&O Information Manager
Freedom of Information Compliance
Specialist Crime & Operations (SC&O)
Metropolitan Police Service
020 7230 9962

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed]  
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012080003457

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/08/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

I therefore, have to ask: was Dr Gerry McCann consulted in any way    
,over Dr David Kelly in 2003? The period includes Dr David Kelly 's    
death ? .

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within Specilialist Crime and Operations (SCO) at Homicide and Serious
Crime Command (SCO1).

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request,
therefore, the information you have requested in relation to Dr Gerry
McCann and Dr David kelly is not held by the MPS.

It is publicly acknowledged that Thames Valley Police set up an
investigation into the initial disappearance of Doctor Kelly.  The missing
person investigation was given the name Operation Mason which was retained
for the subsequent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Doctor
Kelly's death, see below link:
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutu...

The MPS were not involved with the investigation, that is why no
information is held.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Carrington
SC&O Information Manager
Freedom of Information Compliance
Specialist Crime & Operations (SC&O)
Metropolitan Police Service
020 7230 9962

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Erh!? The Met is being funded £M's for a Maddie #McCann case review! Mentioned in UK Parliament, by the Prime Minister himself David Cameron! Thames Valley Police did conduct Operation Mason for David Kelly, but YOU, hold ALL the information on Maddie McCann and hence, you would hold the information on her parents and hence on Dr Gerry McCann.

I want to know if Dr Gerry McCann or his wife, Kate McCann were in ANY WAY linked to Dr David Kelly, his family or his work ? I am particularly interested to find out if there is a work related link, before or after Kelly's death. Was Gerry McCann consulted in any way over Dr David kelly?

Yours faithfully,

research-worldwide

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012090002985
I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/09/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

The Met is being funded £M's for a Maddie #McCann case     review!
Mentioned in UK Parliament, by the Prime Minister himself     David
Cameron! Thames Valley Police did conduct Operation Mason for     David
Kelly, but YOU, hold ALL the information on Maddie McCann and     hence,
you would hold the information on her parents and hence on     Dr Gerry
McCann.        

 1. I want to know if Dr Gerry McCann or his wife, Kate McCann were in    
ANY WAY linked to Dr David Kelly, his family or his work ? I am    
particularly interested to find out if there is a work related    
link, before or after Kelly's death.
 2. Was Gerry McCann consulted in     any way over Dr David kelly?

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  You will receive a response within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to
the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party.  In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to achieve this
deadline.  If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Carrington
SC&O Information Manager
Freedom of Information Compliance
Specialist Crime & Operations (SC&O)
Metropolitan Police Service
020 7230 9962
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

research-worldwide

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request on an aspect of the 'Maddie McCann case'.

Whatdotheyknow has informed me that my FOI has been rejected. I would like a review as to why my FOI request for :

"I want to know if Dr Gerry McCann or his wife, Kate McCann were in ANY WAY linked to Dr David Kelly, his family or his work ? I am particularly interested to find out if there is a work related link, before or after Kelly's death. Was Gerry McCann consulted in
any way over Dr David Kelly? "

Gerry McCann advised COMARE : Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment.

I know that Thames Valley Police through Operation Mason holds information on Dr David Kelly 's death, but it is the Met Police through David Cameron's request for a McCann Case Review, which holds all information on Gerry and Kate McCann. I therefore reject Met Police reason for FOI refusal to my FOI request.

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

Yours faithfully,

research-worldwide

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed],

Further to your recent correspondence dated 01/10/2012, I note that there
are several requests displayed on a single page on the whatdotheyknow.com
site.  As a consequence it is unclear as to which request your are
referring to.  This may also cause confusion in relation to the status
updates provided by the whatdotheyknow.com website.

Your request dated 24/08/2012 (ref:2012080003457) has not been refused. 
You were advised on 25/09/2012 that no information is held in relation to
your request.  Your correspondence dated 24/08/2012 has also been logged
as an internal review (ref: 2012080003480) in relation to your original
request (ref:2012080003457).  The internal review (ref:2012080003480) will
be completed shortly.

Your correspondence dated 25/09/2012 has been logged as a new request
(ref:2012090002985) and is currently ongoing. This is wider in scope than
your earlier request as you now refer to 'Kate McCann' and the 'family'
and 'work' of Dr David Kelly.

Your correspondence dated 01/10/2012 quotes the request that has been
logged under ref:2012090002985 and is still ongoing.

With this in mind, please clarify whether you are requesting an internal
review and if so, please provide the reference number that was stated
within the MPS response to your request.

Please note that the MPS is not responsible for the status updates
provided by the whatdotheyknow.com website.

Regards,

Brian Wilson
FoIA Complaints Officer

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed]

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012090002985

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 25/09/2012.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

The Met is being funded £M's for a Maddie #McCann case     review!
Mentioned in UK Parliament, by the Prime Minister himself     David
Cameron! Thames Valley Police did conduct Operation Mason for     David
Kelly, but YOU, hold ALL the information on Maddie McCann and     hence,
you would hold the information on her parents and hence on     Dr Gerry
McCann.        

 1. I want to know if Dr Gerry McCann or his wife, Kate McCann were in    
ANY WAY linked to Dr David Kelly, his family or his work ? I am    
particularly interested to find out if there is a work related    
link, before or after Kelly's death.
 2. Was Gerry McCann consulted in     any way over Dr David kelly? .

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS
to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within Specialist Crime and Operations (SCO) at Homicide and Serious Crime
Command (SCO1).

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request as
the MPS were not involved in the investigation into the death of Dr David
Kelly.

It is publicly acknowledged that Thames Valley Police set up an
investigation into the initial disappearance of Doctor Kelly.  The missing
person investigation was given the name Operation Mason which was retained
for the subsequent investigation into the circumstances surrounding Doctor
Kelly's death, see below link:
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/aboutu...

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Carrington
SC&O Information Manager
Freedom of Information Compliance
Specialist Crime & Operations (SC&O)
Metropolitan Police Service
020 7230 9962
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.  

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear [Name Removed],

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012080003480

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 24th August 2012
requesting that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response
to your request for information received on the 3rd August 2012 (reference
2012080000566).  I would firstly like to offer our apologies for the time
taken to complete this review, clearly it is our responsibility as a
public body that we are able to comply with the guidance put forward by
the Information Commissioner on completing internal reviews within a
maximum of forty working days. On this occasion we have not and I can only
apologise for our shortcomings in that regard.

Please find below a response to your complaint.  

Request for information

Please will you send me all the information that you hold, and that
Leicestershire Constabulary did not hand over to the Portuguese Police
Authorities (the PJ) since 2007 on the Madeleine McCann case.  
   
This to include the all laboratory results.  

MPS Response (summarised)

The searches located information relevant to your request.
NB Leicestershire Constabulary has not withheld any information relating
to this case.

This is a request for documents relating to an ongoing review of evidence
which contains personal information and elements which would impact on Law
Enforcement and International Relations and is fully exempt under sections
27(1)(2)(3), 31(1)(a)(b)(c), & 40(2)(a)(b) (3)(a)(b) of the Act.

Section 27 International Relations

It would not be in the best interests of the public to possibly disrupt
relations between this country and another due to information being
released in response to this request which may not give the whole picture
and may in fact give a misleading view of events.  

It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may
compromise the MPS's relationship with international Police Services.

There is a public interest in this high profile review and disclosure
could provide the public with an insight into how international Police
Services cooperate.

The British Government develops and maintains a robust relationship with
other nation states which can promote mutual interest in trade, defence,
environmental issues, human rights and the fight against terrorism and
international crime.
 
Release of this information by the MPS may prejudice relations between the
UK and international courts as the disclosure of any information that was
provided in confidence would impact negatively on international relations
with the Portuguese authorities.

There is also the prospect that should the British Government release
information which was detrimental to its relationship with one country,
other states or international organisations would reconsider their
affinity with the UK.
This would consequently affect the UK's international abilities relating
to its overseas citizens, consular and commercial interests.

It could also influence the sharing of information provided during the
course of political and diplomatic exchanges.

Section 31 Law Enforcement

Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and
would also hinder this review and any future reviews or investigations
into similar incidents.
In addition the release of any information that may be used to generate an
investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future
proceedings.
 
Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational
information into the public domain which would enable those with the time,
capacity and inclination to try and map strategies used by the MPS.
 
Additionally MPS resources and its ability to operate effectively and
efficiently would directly be affected as this information can be
manipulated by those with criminal intent to operate in those areas.

Release of this information may adversely affect the public's willingness
to come forward if they know how the MPS gathers intelligence on such
matters and how witness statements are garnered and assured.

The disclosure of some of this information to the public by the MPS would
undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS and would furthermore
impact on the trust of witnesses in making statements in the future.

Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental affect reducing the
quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromise this
review.

Section 40 (2) & (3) - Personal Information

I have applied this exemption in that the names of the individuals
identified in this information constitutes personal data which would, if
released, be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

I consider that the release of the names of officers/staff and/or other
persons that are recorded within the requested material constitutes
personal data.
The release of this information would be unfair as the persons concerned
would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this
information publicly available.

Having considered both conditions I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.  

On balance, if disclosed there is the likelihood that the integrity of
this MPS review could be compromised and individual's safety put at risk.
It cannot be justified that the public's interest would be served in
releasing this information if either of these aspects were to be
jeopardised in any way.

Request for Review

It seems very hard to believe that information on a dead girl can be
denied, in part, due to damaging international relations!?

That you quote Data Protection on the basis that somebody is alive for FOI
rejection!?

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to uphold the original decision to engage section 40(2) and (3) -
Personal information; section 31(1) (a) and (b) - Law Enforcement and
section 27(1)(2)(3) - International Relations , Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FoIA).

Further details of the FoIA can be found by way of this link:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Reason for decision

Section 40(2) and (3) - Personal Information

The review acknowledges your comment ‘‘That you quote Data Protection on
the basis that somebody is alive for FOI rejection’ Furthermore, in order
to determine if the information being requested is ‘personal data’ the
review has returned to your original request for information which seeks
‘all the information that you hold, and that Leicestershire Constabulary
did not hand over to the Portuguese Police Authorities (the PJ) since 2007
on the Madeleine McCann case.’  In this respect the review takes note of
the original MPS response which states ‘I consider that the release of the
names of officers/staff and/or other persons that are recorded within the
requested material constitutes personal data.’

Such information contained with the documents requested is plainly
personal information about those individuals as mentioned in the original
response. It is on this basis that the review is satisfied the information
being requested constitutes someone’s personal data as it has a real and
direct relationship to a living person and as such would also be the focus
of the information being requested.

Information Tribunal EA/2010/0089 points out ‘the question of whether the
exemption in section 40(2) of FoIA is engaged is a question of Law based
upon the analysis of the facts.  This is not a case where the Commissioner
was required to exercise his discretion’ Personal data is defined in
section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 as data which relate to
a living individual who can be identified (a) from those data, or (b) from
those data and other information which is in the possession of, or is
likely to come into the possession of, the data controller. The Tribunal
appeal can be found by of this link:
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...

The review must now determine if disclosure of the requested information
would breach one of the data protection principles.  In this respect
personal data is defined under the Data Protection Act 1998 as data that
is biographical in nature, has the applicant as its focus and/or affects
the data subject's privacy in his or her personal, professional or
business life.  To release the requested information would breach
principle one of the Data Protection Act (DPA), the duty of data
controllers to process personal information fairly and lawfully, and would
fail to meet Condition 6 of Schedule 2 of the DPA as we see no legitimate
interest in releasing the information we hold for this purpose. Further
guidance can be found by way of this link
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998...

In Decision Notice FS50419834, which can be found by way of this link:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...
 in deciding whether the disclosure of the requested information would be
fair the Commissioner took into account the following factors:

·        Whether disclosure would cause any unnecessary or unjustified
damage or distress to the individual concerned

·        The individual’s reasonable expectations of what would happen to
their information and

·        Whether the legitimate interests of the public are sufficient to
justify any negative impact to the rights and freedoms of the data
subject.

The review is additionally guided by the Information Tribunal EA/2007/0060
(http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...)
which states “... the application of Paragraph 6 of the DPA involves a
balance between competing interests broadly comparable, but not identical,
to the balance that applies under the public interest test for qualified
exemptions under FOIA. Paragraph 6 requires a consideration of the balance
between: (i) the legitimate interests of those to whom the data would be
disclosed which in this context are members of the public (section
40(3)(a)); and (ii) prejudice to the rights, freedoms and legitimate
interests of data subjects…However because the processing must be
‘necessary’ for the legitimate interests of members of the public to apply
we find that only where (i) outweighs or is greater than (ii) should the
personal data be disclosed.”

The review is therefore satisfied that any further disclosure of personal
data would not be fair and therefore section 40(2) and (3) is correctly
engaged.

Section 31(1) (a)(b) - Law enforcement

Section 31(1) states that information which is not exempt information by
virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this
Act would, or would likely to, prejudice -

(a) the prevention or detection of crime
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders

Further reference can be found by way of this link:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance points to the fact
this exemption is a two-stage test.  Firstly, can a public authority
establish that disclosure of the information would prejudice, or would be
likely to prejudice, any of the areas of law enforcement listed in section
31 (i.e. prevention or detection of crime and apprehension or prosecution
of offenders). Secondly, if so, is the public interest in favour of
maintaining the exemption and therefore withholding the information.

The ICO advises ‘although there must be a casual link, the prejudice test
relates to something that may happen in the future, if the information
were disclosed.  Therefore it is not usually possible to provide concrete
proof that the prejudice would or would be likely to result.
 Nevertheless…there must be more than a mere assertion or belief that
disclosure would lead to prejudice. There must be a logical connection
between the disclosure and the prejudice in order to engage the
exemption.’ The review is further guided by the ICO who states ‘in
considering the application of the exemption, a public authority should
concentrate on the effect of disclosure in order to assess whether there
is any likely prejudice to any law enforcement activities listed in the
exemption. There is no need to consider why the information is held’.  In
this respect the review is satisfied that disclosure of the requested
information is not disclosed in this case thereby rendering any tactical
strategic methods less effective in the future when dealing with similar
incidents.

The review is satisfied that further disclosure of ‘all the information
that you hold, and that Leicestershire Constabulary did not hand over to
the Portuguese Police Authorities (the PJ) since 2007 on the Madeleine
McCann case.  This to include the all laboratory results’ would harm law
enforcement activities in this area by releasing operational information
to the World, as mentioned in the initial MPS response ‘Release would have
the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder
this review and any future reviews or investigations into similar
incidents. In addition the release of any information that may be used to
generate an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any
possible future proceedings. Disclosure would technically be releasing
sensitive operational information into the public domain which would
enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map
strategies used by the MPS. Additionally MPS resources and its ability to
operate effectively and efficiently would directly be affected as this
information can be manipulated by those with criminal intent to operate in
those areas. Release of this information may adversely affect the public's
willingness to come forward if they know how the MPS gathers intelligence
on such matters and how witness statements are garnered and assured.’

The review is therefore satisfied that section 31(1)(a)(b) is correctly
engaged.

Section 27 (1) (2) (3) - International Relations

The review gives attention to your comment ‘It seems very hard to believe
that information on a dead girl can be denied, in part, due to damaging
international relations’ and can advise you that section 27 provides:

(1)Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to, prejudice—

(a)relations between the United Kingdom and any other State,

(b)relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation
or international court,

(c)the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, or

(d)the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of its interests
abroad.

(2)Information is also exempt information if it is confidential
information obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or from an
international organisation or international court.

(3)For the purposes of this section, any information obtained from a
State, organisation or court is confidential at any time while the terms
on which it was obtained require it to be held in confidence or while the
circumstances in which it was obtained make it reasonable for the State,
organisation or court to expect that it will be so held.

Section 27 is a qualified exemption. This means that even where its
provisions are engaged, the information can only be withheld when the
public interest in maintaining the exemption in question, outweighs the
public interest in disclosure.

In this regard the review has considered the initial MPS response and the
public interest considerations in respect of disclosure, which states
‘There is a public interest in this high profile review and disclosure
could provide the public with an insight into how international Police
Services cooperate.’ However this must be balanced against the
considerations against disclosure, namely ‘It is not in the public
interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS's
relationship with international Police Services…Release of this
information by the MPS may prejudice relations between the UK and
international courts as the disclosure of any information that was
provided in confidence would impact negatively on international relations
with the Portuguese authorities.’

The review is satisfied that any further disclosure of information in
regards to your request would be likely to damage the bilateral
relationship between the United Kingdom and other governments. This would
reduce the UK government's ability to protect and promote UK interests
through its relations with different countries which would not be in the
public interest.

With these considerations in mind, the review is satisfied that the public
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in
disclosing the requested information in this case and therefore section
27(1)(2)(3) is appropriately engaged.

Conclusion

I hope the explanation provided clarifies why on this occasion the MPS
maintains its stance to engage section 40(2) (3); 31(1) (a) (b) and
27(1)(2)(3). This decision is based on the circumstances of this
particular case, with regard to the nature of the information requested
and with appropriate consideration given to the public interest test.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 3605 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
Quality and Assurance Advisor

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
 Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 700

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk