Madeleine McCann Case - Operation Grange - Information

Anthony Bennett 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 partially successful.

Anthony Bennett

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

REQUEST ALSO SENT TO THE HOME OFFFICE

Regarding the Madeleine McCann investigation being carried out by Operation Grange

1. Please state the name and rank of the current Investigation Co-Ordinator/Senior Investigation Officer
2. Please name all the officers in the reporting line from the S.I.O. up to the Metropolitan Commissioner, and give their current rank
3. Please state the total number of staff currently employed by Operatio9n Grange and give their ranks
4. Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013: (A) On what date did Operation Grange first receive these efits? (B) From whom? (C) Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying this man?
5. Reference was made in 2014 to Operation Grange/the Home Office/the government paying for Portuguese assistance with searches in Praia da Luz, Portugal, including the hire of a top-of-the-range Mark III Alouette military helicopter. Please give the dates and amounts of all or any payments made to the Portuguese government or any Portuguese agencies in respect of these expenses or any other expenses for which the Portuguese Poice or other agencies have requested payment.
(This same question has also been sent to the Home Office)

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018030000241

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), REQUEST ALSO SENT TO THE HOME
OFFFICE

* Regarding the Madeleine McCann investigation being carried out by
Operation Grange

* 1. Please state the name and rank of the current Investigation
Co-Ordinator/Senior Investigation Officer 2. Please name all the
officers in the reporting  line  from the S.I.O. up to the
Metropolitan Commissioner, and give their current rank 3. Please state
the total number of staff currently employed by Operatio9n Grange and
give their ranks 4. Two efits of a person suspected of being
Madeleine's abductor were shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14
October 2013: (A) On what date did Operation Grange first receive
these efits? (B) From whom? (C) Is Operation Grange still seeking the
public's help in identifying this man? 5. Reference was made in 2014
to Operation Grange/the Home Office/the government paying for
Portuguese assistance with searches in Praia da Luz, Portugal,
including the hire of a top-of-the-range Mark III Alouette military
helicopter. Please give the dates and amounts of all or any payments
made to the Portuguese government or any Portuguese agencies in
respect of these expenses or any other expenses for which the
Portuguese Poice or other agencies have requested payment. (This same
question has also been sent to the Home Office)

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.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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 Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018030000241

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Regarding the Madeleine McCann investigation being carried out by
Operation Grange
* 1. Please state the name and rank of the current Investigation
Co-Ordinator/Senior Investigation Officer
* 2. Please name all the officers in the reporting  line  from the
S.I.O. up to the Metropolitan Commissioner, and give their current
rank
* 3. Please state the total number of staff currently employed by
Operation Grange and give their ranks
* 4. Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were
shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013:
* (A) On what date did Operation Grange first receive these efits?
* (B) From whom?
* (C) Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying
this man?
* 5. Reference was made in 2014 to Operation Grange/the Home Office/the
government paying for Portuguese assistance with searches in Praia da
Luz, Portugal, including the hire of a top-of-the-range Mark III
Alouette military helicopter. Please give the dates and amounts of all
or any payments made to the Portuguese government or any Portuguese
agencies in respect of these expenses or any other expenses for which
the Portuguese Police or other agencies have requested payment.

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
with Operation Grange.  The searches located some information relevant to
your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information.  Some
data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this
response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act).  Please see the legal annex for further
information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The MPS disclose information on the cost of Operation Grange either in
quarters or in full year periods.  We are not prepared to provide data on
individual spends under the operation as that information, if disclosed,
would indicate the level of activity and the current focus of the
operation.

The MPS are not prepared to provide a running commentary on the progress
of the investigation and instead will release statements in the form of
press lines or blogs in order to keep the public informed without
compromising what is an ongoing investigation.  Providing up to date data
for each FOI request that comes in would add towards that "running
commentary" and has the potential to disrupt the investigation therefore
we have applied the exemption under section 30 of the Freedom of
Information Act.

AC Mark Rowley's blog post is available at the following link:
http://news.met.police.uk/blog_posts/ac-....

We are not prepared to answer part four of your request.  However I would
like to draw your attention to the latest cost breakdown that has been
provided.  Please note the categories provided are the categories that
exist on our finance system, the MPS will not provide any further
granularity concerning the cost of the operation.

DISCLOSURE

* 1. Please state the name and rank of the current Investigation
Co-Ordinator/Senior Investigation Officer

The Senior Investigating office is Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Nicola
Wall

* 2. Please name all the officers in the reporting  line  from the
S.I.O. up to the Metropolitan Commissioner, and give their current
rank

DCI Wall reports to Commander Stuart Cundy.  Mr Cundy reports to Assistant
Commissioner Martin Hewitt.  Mr Hewitt reports to Commissioner Cressida
Dick.

* 3. Please state the total number of staff currently employed by
Operation Grange and give their ranks

There are three Detective Constables and one Detective Sergeant in the
Operation Grange team.

* 4. Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were
shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013: (A) On what
date did Operation Grange first receive these efits? (B) From whom?
(C) Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying
this man?

These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008
as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private
investigators that had been working on the case.  The MPS will not comment
on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do
not form part of any current appeal.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 3583 or via email at [email address],
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

David Edwards
Information Rights Unit

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.

Section 30(1)(a)(i)&(ii) of the Act provides:

(1)        Information held by a public authority is exempt information if
it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of—

(a)  any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct
with a view to it being ascertained—

(i)  whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it

Why does the section 30 exemption apply?

As mentioned above the MPS will not provide a running commentary on live
investigations.  Disclosure of financial information will indicate the
level of activity that is being undertaken in respect of the investigation
for example if there has been a need for an increase in overseas visits
there will be a substantial increase in costs.  Similarly increases in
investigative leads would be likely to increase overtime costs.  

In light of the above an unintentional consequence of the disclosure of
financial data would be the indication of whether or not the investigation
has had a sudden increase (or decrease) in activity.  To this end the MPS
are not prepared to discuss details of individual spends or provide any
breakdown of spending beyond the standard categories that have been
disclosed.

If the MPS were to publish such details we would be revealing sensitive
information that would be of use to offenders.  To clarify, if an offender
is aware of a sudden flurry of activity concerning an investigation he/she
would be likely to take additional measures to avoid detection or
apprehension.  Conversely offenders would also benefit should the
disclosure show that activity on the investigation had diminished.  

At this point, I would like to explain that all FOI disclosures are
published on our website as the information, once disclosed, is considered
to be available to all members of the public.  Furthermore once disclosure
has been made it is unlikely that we would refuse the disclosure of
subsequent requests of the same nature.

We must protect the integrity of our investigation, however we are also
keenly aware of the public’s interest in the cost of this investigation
and therefore a careful balance is needed to show that we are both
accountable for our decisions and transparent regarding the cost to the
public purse.

The exemption provide under section 30 of the Act is qualified and
therefore I am required to provide you with a public interest test.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

The MPS understands that there is significant public interest in matters
concerning Madeleine McCann.  The investigation has been lengthy and
ultimately is resourced using public funds.  It is important that we are
as open and transparent as possible when dealing with matters of such high
public interest.  Disclosure here would provide clarity on the costs
associated with the operation and would encourage debate concerning the
use of public funds.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

It is important to acknowledge that this is an ongoing investigation into
the disappearance of a child.  As with all investigations it is of
paramount importance that the response to a Freedom of Information request
does not disrupt or have any negative impact on that investigation.
 Clearly such disruption to an investigation would not be in the best
interests of the public.  The length of time and money that is put into an
investigation does not diminish the argument above.  

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
 The argument in favour of non-disclosure is significant as ultimately it
is not in the best interests of the public to disclose any information
that could prejudice an ongoing investigation, assist offenders or
increase the risk of further offences being committed.

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, 10 Lambs Conduit Street, London, WC1N 3NR.
 
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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Anthony Bennett

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

3 April 2018

To: Met Police
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - Madeleine McCann - Operation Grange - Information

Dear Met Police

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

I am writing to request an internal review of the Met Police's handling of my FOI request 'Madeleine McCann - Operation Grange - Information'.

CLEAR ERROR IN THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY DAVID EDWARDS, INFORMATION RIGHTS UNIT, AND THE CONSEQUENT NEED FOR CORRECTION AND FOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Dear Head of Information Rights Unit

This letter is in effect a request for a review by a more senior officer.

I begin by thanking the Met Police for their prompt reply and their partial disclosure of information. I also understand the legal reasons why some of the information sought may not be able to be disclosed.

In my original question submitted on 3 March, point 4 on which information was sought was this:

“4. Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013:
(A) On what date did Operation Grange first receive these efits?
(B) From whom?
(C) Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying this man?”

Your reply was: “These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal”.

There is a very obvious problem with this answer. Operation Grange was not set up until May 2011, or so we have been told. The decision to set up a Review of the Madeleine McCann case was, so we learned in the media, prompted by Rebekah Brooks, then the Chief Executive Officer of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, having on 11 May 2011 threatened David Cameron, then Prime Minister, with ‘a week of bad headlines about Theresa May’ if he did not set up the Review. On the same day Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper published an appeal to David Cameron by the McCanns asking for a Review of their case. The following day (12 May 2011), David Cameron, via an unnamed spokesman, said a Review had been ordered by Theresa May, then Home Secretary, “to help the family”. Months later, it was learnt that the Review was being conducted under the banner of ‘Operation Grange’. If all of the above facts are correct, it must follow that Operation Grange was NOT set up in or before September 2008 as claimed in the reply by the Information Rights Unit.

Another possibility is that Operation Grange WAS set up in or before September 2008 as the Information Unit has attested, and that therefore the Review apparently ordered in May 2011 was merely a continuation of the work being done by the Met Police under ‘Operation Grange’ for the previous two years and eight months (or more).

Before inviting you to clarify and expand on your answers regarding these e-fits, the following is the information we have from (a) the Portuguese Police files, released on a DVD in August 2007 and (b) various media reports:

1 Martin Smith and two members of his family made formal statements on 26 May 2007 stating that they had seen a man carrying a young blonde girl clad only in pyjamas at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing. On 15 May 2007 Robert Murat had been declared a formal suspect in the case. The day after (16 May), Martin Smith told the Portuguese Police that he and his family now remembered seeing a man carrying a young blonde girl - but was adamant that day, and on when he made his formal statement on 26 May, that the man he had seen on 3 May was NOT Robert Murat. He asserted that because he ‘knew’ Robert Murat (Public information: PJ Files) .

2 On 20 September 2007 Martin Smith contacted the Irish Police and told them that he was now 60% to 80% certain that the man he had seen on 3 May was Gerry McCann, Madeleine’s father. He subsequently signed a formal statement to that effect (Public information: PJ Files)

3 On 3 January 2008, a number of media reports confirmed that Martin Smith had been contacted by Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3 on behalf of the McCanns. Brian Kennedy had been appointed by the McCanns back in September 2007 to lead their private investigations and he had hired Metodo 3. Subsequently, at a time probably in the spring of 2008 but on a date that the McCanns have not yet disclosed, Martin Smith and presumably one or more members of his family helped to draw up the two very different-looking efits which are the subject of this Freedom of Information Act question.

On 14 October 2013, on a BBC Crimewatch programme, the efits were shown to the public by Operation Grange for the first time (albeit that they had been trailed in some media the previous two days). They were described in relation to ‘an Irish family’, though the Smiths were not named, and it was said that ‘two of the witnesses’ had drawn up the efits. It was presumed from that that the two witnesses disagreed substantially on what he looked like, since the faces are clearly very different.

On Sunday 27 October 2013, the Sunday Times ran an article which, in summary, blamed the McCanns for not having handed over the efits to the police ‘for 5 years’ .The McCanns sued for libel and the Sunday Times apologised and paid the McCanns libel damages of £55,000 plus agreed costs.

The original article said this: “The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007. The critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators. The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008. It contained crucial efiits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard”.

The Sunday Times article continued: “The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by [Jane] Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith efits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal. One of the Oakley investigators said last week: ‘I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme…It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things…those efits you saw on Crimewatch are ours’. The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns”.

The subsequent Sunday Times apology was short, as follows:

“In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had efits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan Police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused”

This apology did not specify who had handed these efits to the Portuguese Police and Leicestershire Police, nor when. Henri Exton, who was employed by the McCanns via Kevin Halligen’s Oakley International company, said that he had handed the efits to the McCanns. According to the McCanns, the efits were provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police “by October 2009”.
These efits, then, have a contradictory and unexplained history attached to them.

The efits were important enough for the BBC and Operation Grange to spend, reportedly, well over six months and over £2 million preparing the Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013, the entire focus of which was these two efits. DCI Redwood from Operation Grange said that they were now “the centre of our focus”. Around 7 million people watched the programme. Viewers were invited to identify this man and call Crimewatch. We know from DCI Redwood that hundreds did contact the programme .He also disclosed that specific names were suggested by the callers.

It cannot be said therefore that this case, or the history of the efits, in any way lacks ‘public interest’. On the contrary, it has been highlighted continually in British and international media for over 10 years. Both the McCanns and the Met Police have made on-the-record statements that they want the investigation into Madeleine McCann to be ‘open’ and ‘transparent’. Further, the general public is surely entitled to the maximum possible disclosure in this case because of the amount of public money devoted to the case by the generosity of the British public and by the taxpayer.

Thus all the usual ‘public interest’ tests appear to be satisfied in this case in favour of disclosure. Moreover, the public in a case of this national importance should not have to be in the position of constantly being told contradictory stories about these efists, especially when the source of some of those contradictions and confusion is the Metropolitan Police Information Rights Department itself .

To sum up:

1 We do not know precisely when the efits were produced

2 We are told that Henri Exton handed the efits to the McCanns in September 2008 although, if that is true, it is highly likely that the McCanns were aware of them and saw them before that

3 We were told by the Sunday Times apology, the terms of which the McCanns’ lawyers must have approved, that the efits were handed to both the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police ‘by October 2009’ – but we do not know who handed them to them, nor do we know the dates. The presumption must be that since the McCanns now held the efits, it was entirely within their power as to when to release these efits and, if so, to whom

4 We are now told by a Met Police answer to a Freedom of Information request that “a dossier of material [including the efits] was handed to the MPS by private investigators in September 2008”.

5 But the same Sunday Times correction/apology said that the ‘final report including the efits’ was ‘passed to the Metropolitan Police in August 2011’ (though not saying by whom) ‘shortly after it commenced its review’.

There is a clear conflict, then, between these three separate claims:
(1) efits handed to Portuguese and Leicestershire Police [presumably by the McCanns] ‘by October 2009’ (per Sunday Times apology)
(2) efits handed to the Met Police by private investigators in August 2011 (per Sunday Times apology), and
(3) efits handed to the MPS by private investigators in September 2008” (per MPS Freedom of Information Act answer, March 2018).

I would also at this stage remind the Met Police of their answers to these previous Freedom of Information Act questions:
- On what date were these two e-fits created? – NOT ANSWERED
- Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually other witnesses? If so, please state who they were. – ANSWER: “The programme was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits”.
- Are the e-fits of the same man, or not? - ANSWER: “Yes they are the same man”.
- On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation Grange? – NOT ANSWERED
- On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or (b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail, letter or otherwise? – NOT ANSWERED.
----
It is clear, at least, that these two efits were produced by Henri Exton, former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, and the Oakley International Team appointed by the McCanns and Brian Kennedy early in 2008.

It is also clear that these efits were passed to the McCanns, presumably shortly after they were first produced

The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act answer states on the record that the MPS/Operation Grange were handed ‘a dossier plus the efits’ by private investigators ‘in September 2008’.

Yet in a public apology in the Sunday Times, presumably sanctioned by the McCanns, we were told that the efits were part of a report first handed in to the Met Police in August 2011 (nearly three years later).

Moreover, this Sunday Times report referred to a ‘final report’ of the private investigators .Yet according to Mr Exton and the Sunday Times this final report was submitted by Henri Exton to the McCanns in September 2008, long before August 2011.
Therefore for the purposes of full clarification, and having regard to the overwhelming public interest in this case, I now ask the following supplementary questions to those I asked on 3 March 2018:

1. On what date, and by whom, were these two efits first drawn up?
2. On what date or dates did the private investigators release these two efits released and to whom?
3. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to \Leicestershire Police?
4. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to the Portuguese Police?
5. On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation Grange, and by whom?
6. On what date did Operation Grange first receive these two efits, and from whom?
7. If the Metropolitan Police first received these efits before Operation Grange was set up, on what date were they received and by which department of the MPS were they received?
8. The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act reply refers specifically to the ‘final’ version of the private investigators’ report.

Therefore, in the interests of clarity, and having regard (a) to the public interest and (b) assurances by both the McCanns and the Met Police that the investigations into Madeleine’s disappearance would be conducted with maximum openness and transparency, please state:

(i) On what date was the ‘final’ private investigators’ report compiled.
(ii) How many interim reports were there before the ‘final report’ and when was each of them compiled?

It is believed that the Metropolitan Police holds all of this information.

In relation to this answer: “The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal”, let it be noted again that British taxpayers paid over £2 million for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special which heavily featured these two controversial efits and they are surely entitled as much information as is reasonable to disclose about the outcome.

Please therefore answer the following questions:
* Has the man in the efits been identified?
* If Yes, has he been positively ruled out as Madeleine’s abductor?
* If No, is the Met Policer still searching for him?
* If No, is the Met Police still searching for someone else as the likely abductor?
* The efits still appear on the McCanns’ ‘Find Madeleine’ website despite the MPS ‘no longer using them as part of its appeal’.
* Has the MPS advised the McCanns to remove these efits from their website?
* If Yes, on what date please.

The publication of the fullest possible answers to these questions will help to clear up what appears to be a cloud of contradictions and evasions surrounding the production of these efits and the use to which they have been put.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Bennett

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

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018040000062

I write in connection with your request for a review of the handling
and/or decision relating to  2018030000241 which was received by the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on  03/04/2018.  

A review will now be conducted in accordance with the Code of Practice
issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).
 The reviewing officer will reconsider the original request before
responding to you with their findings.

There is no statutory time limit in relation to the completion of an
Internal Review.  However, the MPS aim to complete Internal Reviews within
20 working days or in exceptional cases, within 40 working days.  This is
based upon guidance published by the Information Commissioner.

If it is not possible to complete the Internal Review within this
timescale you will be informed at the earliest opportunity.

If you are unhappy with the outcome of an Internal Review you may wish to
refer the matter to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

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

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Review Reference No: 2018040000062

I am sorry you are disappointed with the outcome of your request for
information.

Further to our earlier correspondence dated 04/04/2018, I am now able to
provide a response to your complaint concerning Freedom of Information Act
(the Act) request reference number: 2018030000241.  

This review concentrates on the following request that you submitted to
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/03/2018:

Regarding the Madeleine McCann investigation being carried out by
Operation Grange
1. Please state the name and rank of the current Investigation
Co-Ordinator/Senior Investigation Officer
2. Please name all the officers in the reporting  line  from the S.I.O. up
to the Metropolitan Commissioner, and give their current rank
3. Please state the total number of staff currently employed by Operation
Grange and give their ranks
4. Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were
shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013:
(A) On what date did Operation Grange first receive these efits?
(B) From whom?
(C) Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying
this man?
5. Reference was made in 2014 to Operation Grange/the Home Office/the
government paying for Portuguese assistance with searches in Praia da Luz,
Portugal, including the hire of a top-of-the-range Mark III Alouette
military helicopter. Please give the dates and amounts of all or any
payments made to the Portuguese government or any Portuguese agencies in
respect of these expenses or any other expenses for which the Portuguese
Police or other agencies have requested payment

On 31/03/2018, we provided you with a partial disclosure.

On 04/04/2018, you wrote the following:

I am writing to request an internal review of the Met Police's handling of
my FOI request 'Madeleine McCann - Operation Grange - Information'.

CLEAR ERROR IN THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY DAVID EDWARDS, INFORMATION
RIGHTS UNIT, AND THE CONSEQUENT NEED FOR CORRECTION AND FOR SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION

Dear Head of Information Rights Unit

This letter is in effect a request for a review by a more senior officer.

I begin by thanking the Met Police for their prompt reply and their
partial disclosure of information. I also understand the legal reasons why
some of the information sought may not be able to be disclosed.

In my original question submitted on 3 March, point 4 on which information
was sought was this:

"4. Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were
 shown on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013:
 (A) On what date did Operation Grange first receive these efits?
 (B) From whom?
 (C) Is Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying
this man?"

Your reply was: "These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in
September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by
private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not
comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the
efits do not form part of any current appeal".

There is a very obvious problem with this answer. Operation Grange was not
set up until May 2011, or so we have been told. The decision to set up a
Review of the Madeleine McCann case was, so we learned in the media,
prompted by Rebekah Brooks, then the Chief Executive Officer of Rupert
Murdoch's News Corporation, having on 11 May 2011 threatened David
Cameron, then Prime Minister, with 'a week of bad headlines about Theresa
May' if he did not set up the Review. On the same day Rupert Murdoch's Sun
newspaper published an appeal to David Cameron by the McCanns asking for a
Review of their case. The following day (12 May 2011), David Cameron, via
an unnamed spokesman, said a Review had been ordered by Theresa May, then
Home Secretary, "to help the family". Months later, it was learnt that the
Review was being conducted under the banner of 'Operation Grange'. If all
of the above facts are correct, it must follow that Operation Grange was
NOT set up in or before September 2008 as claimed in the reply by the
Information Rights Unit.

Another possibility is that Operation Grange WAS set up in or before
September 2008 as the Information Unit has attested, and that therefore
the Review apparently ordered in May 2011 was merely a continuation of the
work being done by the Met Police under 'Operation Grange' for the
previous two years and eight months (or more).

Before inviting you to clarify and expand on your answers regarding these
e-fits, the following is the information we have from (a) the Portuguese
Police files, released on a DVD in August 2007 and (b) various media
reports:

1 Martin Smith and two members of his family made formal statements on 26
May 2007 stating that they had seen a man carrying a young blonde girl
clad only in pyjamas at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May 2007, the night
Madeleine McCann was reported missing. On 15 May 2007 Robert Murat had
been declared a formal suspect in the case. The day after (16 May), Martin
Smith told the Portuguese Police that he and his family now remembered
seeing a man carrying a young blonde girl - but was adamant that day, and
on when he made his formal statement on 26 May, that the man he had seen
on 3 May was NOT Robert Murat. He asserted that because he 'knew' Robert
Murat (Public information: PJ Files) .

2 On 20 September 2007 Martin Smith contacted the Irish Police and told
them that he was now 60% to 80% certain that the man he had seen on 3 May
was Gerry McCann, Madeleine's father. He subsequently signed a formal
statement to that effect (Public information: PJ Files)

3 On 3 January 2008, a number of media reports confirmed that Martin Smith
had been contacted by Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3 on behalf of the McCanns.
Brian Kennedy had been appointed by the McCanns back in September 2007 to
lead their private investigations and he had hired Metodo 3. Subsequently,
at a time probably in the spring of 2008 but on a date that the McCanns
have not yet disclosed, Martin Smith and presumably one or more members of
his family helped to draw up the two very different-looking efits which
are the subject of this Freedom of Information Act question.

On 14 October 2013, on a BBC Crimewatch programme, the efits were shown to
the public by Operation Grange for the first time (albeit that they had
been trailed in some media the previous two days). They were described in
relation to 'an Irish family', though the Smiths were not named, and it
was said that 'two of the witnesses' had drawn up the efits. It was
presumed from that that the two witnesses disagreed substantially on what
he looked like, since the faces are clearly very different.

On Sunday 27 October 2013, the Sunday Times ran an article which, in
summary, blamed the McCanns for not having handed over the efits to the
police 'for 5 years' .The McCanns sued for libel and the Sunday Times
apologised and paid the McCanns libel damages of £55,000 plus agreed
costs.

The original article said this: "The new prime suspect was first singled
out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Madeleine
disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007. The critical new
evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard's search for Madeleine McCann was
kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5
investigators. The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report
produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008. It
contained crucial efiits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of
Madeleine's disappearance, which have only this month become public after
he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard".

The Sunday Times article continued: "The potential abductor seen by the
Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard's investigation, after
detectives established that the man seen earlier by [Jane] Tanner was
almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night
creche. The Smith efits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal. One
of the Oakley investigators said last week: 'I was absolutely stunned when
I watched the programme…It most certainly wasn't a new timeline and it
certainly isn't a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest
either of those things…those efits you saw on Crimewatch are ours'. The
detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never
released by the McCanns".

The subsequent Sunday Times apology was short, as follows:

"In articles dated October 27 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and
"Investigators had efits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which
were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the
McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been
understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the
authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the
efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by
October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including
the efits was passed to the Metropolitan Police in August 2011, shortly
after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused"

This apology did not specify who had handed these efits to the Portuguese
Police and Leicestershire Police, nor when. Henri Exton, who was employed
by the McCanns via Kevin Halligen's Oakley International company, said
that he had handed the efits to the McCanns. According to the McCanns, the
efits were provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police "by
October 2009".
These efits, then, have a contradictory and unexplained history attached
to them.

The efits were important enough for the BBC and Operation Grange to spend,
reportedly, well over six months and over £2 million preparing the
Crimewatch McCann Special on 14 October 2013, the entire focus of which
was these two efits. DCI Redwood from Operation Grange said that they were
now "the centre of our focus". Around 7 million people watched the
programme. Viewers were invited to identify this man and call Crimewatch.
We know from DCI Redwood that hundreds did contact the programme .He also
disclosed that specific names were suggested by the callers.

It cannot be said therefore that this case, or the history of the efits,
in any way lacks 'public interest'. On the contrary, it has been
highlighted continually in British and international media for over 10
years. Both the McCanns and the Met Police have made on-the-record
statements that they want the investigation into Madeleine McCann to be
'open' and 'transparent'. Further, the general public is surely entitled
to the maximum possible disclosure in this case because of the amount of
public money devoted to the case by the generosity of the British public
and by the taxpayer.

Thus all the usual 'public interest' tests appear to be satisfied in this
case in favour of disclosure. Moreover, the public in a case of this
national importance should not have to be in the position of constantly
being told contradictory stories about these efists, especially when the
source of some of those contradictions and confusion is the Metropolitan
Police Information Rights Department itself .

To sum up:

1 We do not know precisely when the efits were produced

2 We are told that Henri Exton handed the efits to the McCanns in
September 2008 although, if that is true, it is highly likely that the
McCanns were aware of them and saw them before that

3 We were told by the Sunday Times apology, the terms of which the
McCanns' lawyers must have approved, that the efits were handed to both
the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police 'by October 2009' - but we do not
know who handed them to them, nor do we know the dates. The presumption
must be that since the McCanns now held the efits, it was entirely within
their power as to when to release these efits and, if so, to whom

4 We are now told by a Met Police answer to a Freedom of Information
request that "a dossier of material [including the efits] was handed to
the MPS by private investigators in September 2008".

5 But the same Sunday Times correction/apology said that the 'final report
including the efits' was 'passed to the Metropolitan Police in August
2011' (though not saying by whom) 'shortly after it commenced its review'.

There is a clear conflict, then, between these three separate claims:
(1) efits handed to Portuguese and Leicestershire Police [presumably by
the McCanns] 'by October 2009' (per Sunday Times apology)
(2) efits handed to the Met Police by private investigators in August 2011
(per Sunday Times apology), and
(3) efits handed to the MPS by private investigators in September 2008"
(per MPS Freedom of Information Act answer, March 2018).

I would also at this stage remind the Met Police of their answers to these
previous Freedom of Information Act questions:
- On what date were these two e-fits created? - NOT ANSWERED
- Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were. - ANSWER: "The
programme was referring to members of the Irish family who created the
e-fits".
- Are the e-fits of the same man, or not? - ANSWER: "Yes they are the same
man".
- On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange? - NOT ANSWERED
- On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise? - NOT ANSWERED.
----
It is clear, at least, that these two efits were produced by Henri Exton,
former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, and the Oakley International
Team appointed by the McCanns and Brian Kennedy early in 2008.

It is also clear that these efits were passed to the McCanns, presumably
shortly after they were first produced

The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act answer states on the record that
the MPS/Operation Grange were handed 'a dossier plus the efits' by private
investigators 'in September 2008'.

Yet in a public apology in the Sunday Times, presumably sanctioned by the
McCanns, we were told that the efits were part of a report first handed in
to the Met Police in August 2011 (nearly three years later).

Moreover, this Sunday Times report referred to a 'final report' of the
private investigators .Yet according to Mr Exton and the Sunday Times this
final report was submitted by Henri Exton to the McCanns in September
2008, long before August 2011.
Therefore for the purposes of full clarification, and having regard to the
overwhelming public interest in this case, I now ask the following
supplementary questions to those I asked on 3 March 2018:

1. On what date, and by whom, were these two efits first drawn up?
2. On what date or dates did the private investigators release these two
efits released and to whom?
3. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to \Leicestershire
Police?
4. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to the Portuguese Police?
5. On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation Grange, and
by whom?
6. On what date did Operation Grange first receive these two efits, and
from whom?
7. If the Metropolitan Police first received these efits before Operation
Grange was set up, on what date were they received and by which department
of the MPS were they received?
8. The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act reply refers specifically to
the 'final' version of the private investigators' report.

Therefore, in the interests of clarity, and having regard (a) to the
public interest and (b) assurances by both the McCanns and the Met Police
that the investigations into Madeleine's disappearance would be conducted
with maximum openness and transparency, please state:

(i) On what date was the 'final' private investigators' report compiled.
(ii) How many interim reports were there before the 'final report' and
when was each of them compiled?

It is believed that the Metropolitan Police holds all of this information.

In relation to this answer: "The MPS will not comment on whether
identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form
part of any current appeal", let it be noted again that British taxpayers
paid over £2 million for the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special which heavily
featured these two controversial efits and they are surely entitled as
much information as is reasonable to disclose about the outcome.

Please therefore answer the following questions:
* Has the man in the efits been identified?
* If Yes, has he been positively ruled out as Madeleine's abductor?
* If No, is the Met Policer still searching for him?
* If No, is the Met Police still searching for someone else as the likely
abductor?
* The efits still appear on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website despite
the MPS 'no longer using them as part of its appeal'.
* Has the MPS advised the McCanns to remove these efits from their
website?
* If Yes, on what date please.

The publication of the fullest possible answers to these questions will
help to clear up what appears to be a cloud of contradictions and evasions
surrounding the production of these efits and the use to which they have
been put.

Decision:

The MPS has reviewed your complaint and has decided to uphold your
complaint.

Reason for decision:

You asked:

Two efits of a person suspected of being Madeleine's abductor were shown
on a TV programme, Crimewatch, on 14 October 2013: (A) On what date did
Operation Grange first receive these efits? (B) From whom? (C) Is
Operation Grange still seeking the public's help in identifying this man?

We responded as follows:

We disclosed the following in answer to this question; These efits were
received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a
dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had
been working on the case.  The MPS will not comment on whether
identifications have or have not been made however, the efits do not form
part of any current appeal.

The answer should have read:

The e FITs were produced in 2008 by private investigators. This
information is in the public domain. The below link refers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

Madeleine McCann went missing in 2007 but Operation Grange did not
commence until May 2011. Operation Grange received the e FITs as part of a
large dossier of material during a handover from the private investigators
in October 2011. This was subsequently worked through and assessed, and
the e FITS formed part of that process.

Our original answer was incorrect and unfortunately the error was not
picked up when the draft response was quality assured. We apologise for
this error and for any confusion it may have caused.

You have made additional requests for information:

Please therefore answer the following questions:
* Has the man in the efits been identified?
* If Yes, has he been positively ruled out as Madeleine's abductor?
* If No, is the Met Policer still searching for him?
* If No, is the Met Police still searching for someone else as the likely
abductor?
* The efits still appear on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website despite
the MPS 'no longer using them as part of its appeal'.
* Has the MPS advised the McCanns to remove these efits from their
website?
* If Yes, on what date please

I have submitted these requests to our FOIA New Requests Team and the
Operation Grange Team for consideration. You will receive an
acknowledgement and a response shortly.

Conclusion:

All requests and internal reviews are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
 The internal review is intended to provide a fair and thorough review of
handling issues and of decisions taken pursuant to the Act. It enables a
fresh decision to be taken on a reconsideration of all the factors
relevant to the request.  For this reason, as far as is practicable, FOIA
internal reviews within the MPS are conducted by individuals that have had
no connection with the initial handling of a request to facilitate a fresh
look at the circumstances of a request.  

Again, I apologise on behalf of the MPS for the error that has occurred in
respect of your request for information.

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this Internal Review you have
the right to appeal the decision by contacting the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) for a decision on whether the request for
information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the
FOIA.

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

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of this Internal Review you have
the right to appeal the decision by contacting the Information
Commissioner's Office (ICO) for a decision on whether the request for
information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the
FOIA.

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

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018040000883

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/04/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"Please therefore answer the following questions:
* Has the man in the efits been identified?
* If Yes, has he been positively ruled out as Madeleine's abductor?
* If No, is the Met Policer still searching for him?
* If No, is the Met Police still searching for someone else as the likely
abductor?
* The efits still appear on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website despite
the MPS 'no longer using them as part of its appeal'.
* Has the MPS advised the McCanns to remove these efits from their
website?
* If Yes, on what date please."

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.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for your reply and I note the corrected FOI Act answer to my question. I look forward to the replies to the additional questions.

Before you reply further, may I respectfully remind you that in addition to the questions you now propose to answer, I also asked these further eight questions in relation to the provenance and subsequent distribution of these two very controversial efits. They were these, QUOTE:

Therefore for the purposes of full clarification, and having regard to the overwhelming public interest in this case, I now ask the following supplementary questions to those I asked on 3 March 2018:
1. On what date, and by whom, were these two efits first drawn up?
2. On what date or dates did the private investigators release these two efits released and to whom?
3. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to Leicestershire Police?
4. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to the Portuguese Police?
5. On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation Grange, and by whom?
6. On what date did Operation Grange first receive these two efits, and from whom?
7. If the Metropolitan Police first received these efits before Operation Grange was set up, on what date were they received and by which department of the MPS were they received?
8. The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act reply refers specifically to the 'final' version of the private investigators' report. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, and having regard (a) to the public interest and (b) assurances by both the McCanns and the Met Police that the investigations into Madeleine's disappearance would be conducted with maximum openness and transparency, please state:
(i) On what date was the 'final' private investigators' report compiled.
(ii) How many interim reports were there before the 'final report' and
when was each of them compiled?
UNQUOTE

-----

Given the huge publicity given to these efits by the Metropolitan Police themselves, applying the ‘harm’ test I cannot see any reason at all why all of the above questions should not be answered, always assuming that the Metropoltian Police holds such information.

In relation to Questions 5 and 6 above, you have only so far supplied a partial answer, namely that Operation Grange received the efits ‘in October 2011’. Could you please supply the actual date the efist were handed in and also please supply the name of the person or persons or organisation who gave the efits to Operation Grange – thank you.

Further, in relation to your original answer (which you have now corrected), you referred he efits having been "received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by the private investigators that had been working on the case”. You clearly specified that something happened in September 2008.

In your most recent answer, you said: “The e FITs were produced in 2008 by private investigators. Operation Grange received the e FITs as part of a large dossier of material during a handover from the private investigators in October 2011”. You then cited a Daily Mail article, maintaining that the information was ‘in the public domain’.

Thank you for supplying a link to this article, dated 28 October 2013, which I have now read. The relevant sentence in that report reads as follows: “Yet it emerged yesterday that the recently released E-fits were in fact contained in files produced five years ago by private investigators hired by the McCanns”.

With great respect, I cannot accept your answer as complying with your duties under the Freedom of Information Act to supply ‘information’. No official or even unofficial source is given for this claim. The Daily Mail merely tells us: “It emerged that…” From where did it ‘emerge’?

Your answer merely says that the efits were ‘produced in 2008’. You then inform us that they were received by Operation Grange ‘in October 2011’. If the efits were first ‘produced’ on, say, 1 January 2008, as they could well have been as your answer does not say when in 2008 they were produced, that would mean that these efits were in effect lying dormant for three years and nine months. Furthermore, they were not put on view until the BBC TV/Operation Grange programme of 14 October 2013, making the total delay up to five years and nine months. Then, as DCI Andy Redwood proclaimed to 7 million views, the became “the centre of [Operation Grange’s] focus”.

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr  Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018040001084

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 24/04/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* , I also asked these further eight questions in relation to the
provenance and subsequent distribution of these two very controversial
efits.  

* They were these, QUOTE: Therefore for the purposes of full
clarification, and having regard to the overwhelming public interest
in this case, I now ask the following supplementary questions to those
I asked on 3 March 2018: 1. On what date, and by whom, were these two
efits first drawn up? 2. On what date or dates did the private
investigators release these two  efits released and to whom? 3. On
what date (if any) were these efits handed to Leicestershire  Police?
4. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to the Portuguese
Police? 5. On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation
Grange, and by whom? 6. On what date did Operation Grange first
receive these two efits, and  from whom? 7. If the Metropolitan Police
first received these efits before Operation  Grange was set up, on
what date were they received and by which department  of the MPS were
they received? 8. The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act reply
refers specifically to the 'final' version of the private
investigators' report. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, and
having regard (a) to the public interest and (b) assurances by both
the McCanns and the Met Police  that the investigations into
Madeleine's disappearance would be conducted  with maximum openness
and transparency, please state: (i) On what date was the 'final'
private investigators' report compiled. (ii) How many interim reports
were there before the 'final report' and when was each of them
compiled?    

* UNQUOTE

* Given the huge publicity given to these efits by the Metropolitan
Police themselves, applying the ‘harm’ test I cannot see any reason at
all why all of the above questions should not be answered, always
assuming that the Metropoltian Police holds such information.   In
relation to Questions 5 and 6 above, you have only so far supplied a
partial answer, namely that Operation Grange received the efits ‘in
October 2011’. Could you please supply the actual date the efist were
handed in and also please supply the name of the person or persons or
organisation who gave the efits to Operation Grange – thank you.
Further, in relation to your original answer (which you have now
corrected), you referred he efits having been "received by the
Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of
material handed to the MPS by the private investigators that had been
working on the case”. You clearly specified that something happened in
September 2008. In your most recent answer, you said: “The e FITs were
produced in 2008 by private investigators. Operation Grange received
the e FITs as part of a large dossier of material during a handover
from the private investigators in October 2011”. You then cited a
Daily Mail article, maintaining that the information was ‘in the
public domain’. Thank you for supplying a link to this article, dated
28 October 2013, which I have now read. The relevant sentence in that
report reads as follows: “Yet it emerged yesterday that the recently
released E-fits were in fact contained in files produced five years
ago by private investigators hired by the McCanns”. With great
respect, I cannot accept your answer as complying with your duties
under the Freedom of Information Act to supply ‘information’. No
official or even unofficial source is given for this claim. The Daily
Mail merely tells us: “It emerged that…”  From where did it ‘emerge’?
Your answer merely says that the efits were ‘produced in 2008’. You
then inform us that they were received by Operation Grange ‘in October
2011’. If the efits were first ‘produced’ on, say, 1 January 2008, as
they could well have been as your answer does not say when in 2008
they were produced, that would mean that these efits were in effect
lying dormant for three years and nine months. Furthermore, they were
not put on view until the BBC TV/Operation Grange programme of 14
October 2013, making the total delay up to five years and nine months.
Then, as DCI Andy Redwood proclaimed to 7 million views, the became
“the centre of [Operation Grange’s] focus”.

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.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Anthony Bennett

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

In view of the claim by Dr Julian Totman, who in 2007 was working at the government's biological, chemical and nuclear weapons research establishment at Porton Down, Wiltshire, that HE and NOT the man identified by DCI Redwood on BBC CrimeWatch in 2013 was the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing, it becomes still more important that the Met Police gives the public open, transparent and FULL answers to all reasonable questions about alleged abductors and suspects.

I have one more question please. Does Operation Grange now agree that Dr Julian Totman was the man seen by Jane Tenner?

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Bennet

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018050000336

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 08/05/2018.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), In view of the claim by Dr
Julian Totman, who in 2007 was working at the government's biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons research establishment at Porton Down,
Wiltshire, that HE and NOT the man identified by DCI Redwood on BBC
CrimeWatch in 2013 was the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm
the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing, it becomes still more
important that the Met Police gives the public open, transparent and
FULL answers to all reasonable questions about alleged abductors and
suspects. I have one more question please. Does Operation Grange now
agree that Dr Julian Totman was the man seen by Jane Tenner?

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.  

If you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please contact
us at [email address] or on the phone at 0207 161 3500, quoting the
reference number above. Should your enquiry relate to the logging or
allocations process we will be able to assist you directly and where your
enquiry relates to other matters (such as the status of the request) we
will be able to pass on a message and/or advise you of the relevant
contact details.

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Support Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team
 
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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2018040000883, 2018040001084
& 2018050000336

I write in connection with your requests for information which were
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 03/04/2018.  I note
you seek access to the following information:

A)        Has the man in the efits been identified?  
B)        If Yes,has he been positively ruled out as Madeleine's abductor?
C)        If No, is the Met Police still searching for him?
D)        If No, is the Met Police still searching for someone else as the
likely abductor?
E)        The efits still appear on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website
despite the MPS 'no longer using them as part of its appeal'. Has the MPS
advised the McCanns to remove these efits from their website?
F)        If Yes,on what date please.

1. On what date, and by whom, were these two efits first drawn up?
2. On what date or dates did the private investigators release these two
efits released and to whom? 3. On what date (if any) were these efits
handed to Leicestershire Police?
4. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to the Portuguese Police?
5. On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation Grange, and
by whom?
6. On what date did Operation Grange first receive these two efits, and
from whom?
7. If the Metropolitan Police first received these efits before Operation
Grange was set up, on what date were they received and by which department
of the MPS were they received?
8. The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act reply refers specifically to
the 'final' version of the private investigators' report Therefore, in the
interests of clarity, and having regard (a) to the public interest and (b)
assurances by both the McCanns and the Met Police that the investigations
into Madeleine's disappearance would be conducte with maximum openness and
transparency, please state: (i) On what date was the 'final' private
investigators' report compiled.
9. (ii) How many interim reports were there before the 'final report' and
when was each of them compiled?

i) Does Operation Grange now agree that Dr Julian Totman was the man seen
by Jane Tenner?

SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
with Operation Grange.  

DECISION

Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore
this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  Please see the legal annex for further
information on the exemptions applied in respect of your request.

RESPONSE

PART ONE

A)        Has the man in the efits been identified?  

Operation Grange is a live investigation, we do not comment on
identification as this information is held for the purpose of the
investigation and therefore falls within the section 30 exemption.

B)        If Yes,has he been positively ruled out as Madeleine's abductor?
C)        If No, is the Met Police still searching for him?
D)        If No, is the Met Police still searching for someone else as the
likely abductor?

Please see the response to A), these "if yes" and "if no" questions cannot
be answered as the information requested under A) is exempt.

E)        The efits still appear on the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website
despite the MPS 'no longer using them as part of its appeal'. Has the MPS
advised the McCanns to remove these efits from their website?

Information that relates to living individuals is exempt from disclosure
by virtue of section 40.  The MPS will not disclose what has or has not
been discussed with the McCann family.

F)        If Yes,on what date please.

Please see the response to E), this "if yes" question cannot be answered
as the information requested under E) is exempt.

PART TWO

1. On what date, and by whom, were these two efits first drawn up?

The efits were drawn up on 04/09/08.  The request "by whom" seeks access
to personal data.  This personal data is withheld under section 40 of the
Act.

2. On what date or dates did the private investigators release these two
efits released and to whom?
3. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to Leicestershire Police?
4. On what date (if any) were these efits handed to the Portuguese Police?

The MPS do not hold and information in respect of these matters.  Please
note this relates to the period before the efits were passed to the MPS.

5. On what date were these efits first supplied to Operation Grange, and
by whom?

The efits were supplied to Operation Grange on 24th October 2011.  The
request "by whom" seeks access to personal data.  This personal data is
withheld under section 40 of the Act.

6. On what date did Operation Grange first receive these two efits, and
from whom?

The efits were received by Operation Grange on 24th October 2011.  The
request "from whom" seeks access to personal data.  This personal data is
withheld under section 40 of the Act.

7. If the Metropolitan Police first received these efits before Operation
Grange was set up, on what date were they received and by which department
of the MPS were they received?

The efits were not received by the MPS before Operation Grange was set up.
 

8. The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act reply refers specifically to
the 'final' version of the private investigators' report. Therefore, in
the interests of clarity, and having regard (a) to the public interest and
(b) assurances by both the McCanns and the Met Police that the
investigations into Madeleine's disappearance would be conducted with
maximum openness and transparency, please state: (i) On what date was the
'final' private investigators' report compiled.
(ii) How many interim reports were there before the 'final report' and
when was each of them compiled?

The recent MPS Freedom of Information Act reply does not refers to the
'final' version of the private investigators' report.  As such we cannot
answer these questions.

PART THREE

i) Does Operation Grange now agree that Dr Julian Totman was the man seen
by Jane Tenner?

Operation Grange is a live investigation, we do not comment on
identification as this information is held for the purpose of the
investigation and therefore falls within the section 30 exemption.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 3583 or via email at [email address],
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

David Edwards
Information Rights Unit

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.

Section 30(1)(a)(i)&(ii) of the Act provides:

(1)        Information held by a public authority is exempt information if
it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of—

(a)  any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct
with a view to it being ascertained—

(i)  whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it

Why does the section 30 exemption apply?

Much of the information you have requested is held solely for the purpose
of an investigation.  The investigation in question, Operation Grange, is
a live an ongoing investigation into the disappearance of a child -
Madeleine McCann.

As you would expect the MPS will not disclose information that is directly
linked to an ongoing investigation.  Such a disclosure would be likely to
have a prejudicial effect on the investigation.  

Information on who has or has not been identified is highly sensitive as
such data would clearly be of use to offenders.  At this point, I would
like to explain that all FOI disclosures are published on our website as
the information, once disclosed, is considered to be available to all
members of the public.  Furthermore once disclosure has been made it is
unlikely that we would refuse the disclosure of subsequent requests of the
same nature.

The Freedom of Information Act does not compel police forces into giving
running commentaries on live investigations.  This was recognised by the
legislators and is reflected in the inclusion of the section 30 exemption.

The MPS must protect the integrity of our investigations and although we
appreciate the public’s interest in this matter it is widely accepted that
information relating specifically to an ongoing investigation will not be
disclosed.

The exemption provided under section 30 of the Act is qualified and
therefore I am required to provide you with a public interest test.

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

The MPS appreciates the public interest in matters concerning Madeleine
McCann.  However it is important that we do not confuse matters that are
of interest to the public with the public interest.  The latter is
considered to be a real or tangible benefit to the public at large.  The
interest in answers to these very specific questions falls more in the
former, that is to say something that the public have an interest in
rather than something that would benefit the public if disclosed.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

In general terms, it would not be in the best interests of the public to
disclose any information that would be likely to prejudice an ongoing
investigation.  Such information would hamper the administration of
justice and therefore would result in offenders not being held to account
and being free to continue offending.  In respect of this specific
investigation, significant sums of money has been attributed to Operation
Grange and while there are public interest considerations in the
disclosure of costs/funding for the operation this clearly does not mean
that it is in the best interests of the public to disclose information
that may prejudice the investigation.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.
 The argument in favour of non-disclosure is significant as ultimately it
is not in the best interests of the public to disclose any information
that could prejudice an ongoing investigation, assist offenders or
increase the risk of further offences being committed.

Section 40(2)&(3)(a)(i) provides:

(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 Data 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

Information that would identify or could assist with the identification of
individuals is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Section 40(2) of the
Act.  In this instance you have asked for the following types of personal
data:

* Names of individuals - for example you ask for the names of the
individuals who drew up, supplied and received the efits
* Details of advice given to named individuals (the McCann family)
* Information on a sighting (personal information of two individuals
named in part three of your request)

In order for the exemption provided under Section 40(2) to be engaged
disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first or
second condition as defined by subsections 3 and 4.  

I have decided that the disclosure of this personal data would breach
principle one of the Data Protection Act 1998 - fair and lawful
processing.  The MPS would not have a legitimate interest in making such a
disclosure, nor would it be consistent with the reasonable expectations of
the individuals this data relates to.

I have applied the exemption provided under Section 40(2) of the Freedom
of Information Act to this information as the first condition, defined in
subsection 3(a)(i) of Section 40 has been satisfied.  

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, 10 Lambs Conduit Street, London, WC1N 3NR.
 
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
Information Rights Unit
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, write to or
phone:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 0303 123 1113

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: [1]https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk 

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

References

Visible links
1. https://m.facebook.com/metpoliceuk