Martin McGartland 17th June 1999 attempted murder

Marty McGartland is single-handedly responsible for stopping at least 45 IRA bomb and assassination plots: http://politics.caledonianmercury.com/20... he saved the lives of at least fifty people and he put his own life in danger while doing so. As a result, the IRA kidnapped Martin 8th August 1991, Marty escaped certain death by jumping from a third floor window. Marty was moved to the UK mainland by British Government, however, for the past 20 years he has been hounded by the State, the Police, MI5 and others, simply because he wrote a book about his experiences; http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Dead-Men-W...

Marty was also shot at least 6 times by the IRA in June 1999, the IRA only found Marty's safe house after MI5, Northumbria Police and the CPS took a flawed and malicious prosecution against him, he was acquitted. However, during the court case Northumbria Police read out Martin's real name and even his home address. Marty's 1991 kidnapping has also been covered up for the past 20 years, The State (including RUC and PSNI) suppressed compelling evidence, evidence that would have resulted in his kidnappers being charged, the men were not even arrested, they were protected by the State for 18 years (until Marty make another complaint); http://www.scribd.com/doc/55567240/Top-P...

Northumbria Police, the Home Office, MI5, NIO, IPCC and many other organs of the State continue to cover up Marty's 1999 attempted murder too; https://www.facebook.com/MartinMcGartland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQhyxr0zd...

This is a total disgrace, it is also wrong, it is a State cover-up. Marty McGartland is in very poor health as a result, the State cover-up has and continues to exacerbate this. The protecting of IRA terrorists and the covering-up of both Marty’s kidnapping and his 1999 attempted murder by the above parties has now gone on for between 12 and 20 years. The above parties are hell bent on protecting IRA terrorists who were involved with both attacks. The above parties are also using every trick in the book, and many more, to cover up their own wrongdoing.

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

https://www.facebook.com/BritishAgents

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Northumbr...

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Police-Co...

Support Marty McGartland (Agent Carol) in his fight for truth and justice. Lets expose those involved; http://www.causes.com/causes/548596-we-t...

You can also find out more information about the State Cover-Up in the Martin McGartland case by searching google, facebook, you tube or the web for: Martin McGartland Northumbria Poilice or Martin McGartland PSNI PPS.

This is not the first time the British State have used the ‘National security’ tactic as an excuse for not giving a full response to controversial questions and allegations concerning their dealings with the 1999 attempted murder of ex- British agent Martin McGartland. This is what they do, they cover-up, they lie, they break the law and they are protecting the IRA terrorists who carried out the shooting of Martin McGartland, they have been doing so for the past 12 years. Just have a look at some of the dirty tricks of the British State; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11yk7p3Kp...
www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

The Home Office have been having some difficulty delivering messages to WDTK. These seem to be caused by them using the wrong email address; the messages are not reaching our mail server.

The above message dated 28th October was manually posted to the request thread after being forwarded to us just now by the Home Office.

Ganesh - WhatDoTheyKnow.com volunteer

COVER-UP IN MARTIN MCGARTLAND CASE; www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

The British Government are covering-up IRA, terrorist involvement in the 1999 attempted murder of Martin McGartland.

Is the ICO going to continue turning a blind-eye, is the ICO going to continue to look both ways when dealing with complaints relating to the Martin McGartlabd case?

Link Here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/79...

Information Rights Team
Shared Services Directorate
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF

Switchboard 020 7035 4848

E-mail: [email address]

Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

Our Ref: 19305

Date: 28 October 2011

Dear Ms Asher

Freedom of Information request (our ref. 19305): internal review

I am writing further to your e-mail of 30 September 2011, in which you asked
for an internal review of our response to your Freedom of Information (FoI) request relating to a Mr Martin McGartland.

I have now completed the review. I have considered whether the correct procedures were followed and assessed the reasons why we neither confirmed nor denied we held the information requested. I confirm that I was not involved in the initial handling of your request.

My findings are set out in the attached report. My conclusion is that the original response was correct to neither confirm nor deny whether any information is held in accordance with sections 23(5), 24(2) and 31(3) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. These exemptions relate to information about, or relating to, certain security bodies, national security, law enforcement and personal information. This should not be taken as conclusive evidence as to whether such information does or does not exist.

This completes the internal review process by the Home Office. If you remain dissatisfied with the response to your FoI request, you have the right of complaint to the Information Commissioner at the

following address:

The Information Commissioner
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

Yours sincerely,

K Mulvaney

Information Access Team, Home Office

1

________________________________________

Internal review of response to request under the Freedom of Information (FoI) Act 2000 by Ms Jo Asher (reference 19305)
Responding Unit: Office of Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) Chronology Original FoI request:

08 July 2011
Original deadline:

05 August 2011

First PIT extension sent:

05 August 2011 First PIT extension deadline:
05 September 2011 Second PIT extension sent:
05 September 2011 Second PIT extension deadline: 03 October 2011 OSCT response:

28 September 2011 Request for internal review: September 2011 Subject of request

1 Ms Asher’s request of 14 July 2011 was as follows:

2. Access to the entirety of the information held on the attempted murder of Martin McGartland by the Home Office and HMG as follows;

1. The facts known to HMG [the Government] and or to the Home Office which links the IRA to the attempted murder of Martin McGartland on 17th June 1999.

2. All recorded information (as detailed under section 84 of FOIA) held by the Home Office and HMG (the Government) containing all/any references to, or otherwise, relating to the shooting of Martin McGartland on the 17th June 1999. The response by OSCT

3. The full OSCT response of 28 September 2011 is enclosed at the Annex of this report. OSCT neither confirmed nor denied whether the Home Office held the information requested under sections 23(5), 24(2), 31(3) and 40(5)(b)(i), which relate to information supplied by, or relating to, the security bodies, national security, law enforcement and personal information. Ms Asher’s request for an internal review

4. Ms Asher requested a full internal review of the response on 30 September 2011. Procedural issues

5. OSCT complied with section 17(1) by citing the exemptions that applied, providing sufficient explanation as to why they were engaged.

6. OSCT stated its intention to maintain the exclusion of the duty to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act under sections 23(5) (information supplied by, or relating to, the security bodies), 24(2) (national security), 31(3) (law enforcement) and section 40(5)(a) (personal

2

________________________________________

information) to neither confirm nor deny it held any information relevant to the request

7. Ms Asher was informed of her right to request an independent internal review of the handling of her request, as required by section 17(7) of the Act. The OSCT response also informed Ms Asher of her right of complaint to the Information Commissioner, as specified in section 17(7) of the Act.

8. The twenty working day deadline is extendable by virtue of section 10(3) of the Act. A full public interest test (PIT) extension letter and notice of the qualified exemption under consideration must be provided within the original deadline.

9. A full PIT extension letter for the request was sent on the twentieth working day following receipt of the request on 05 August 2011. The letter explained that the PIT was being considered in relation to 24(2) (national security which enables us to consider the public interest in confirming or denying whether we hold the information requested. A revised deadline of 05 September 2011 was provided.

10. A second full PIT extension letter was sent to Ms Asher on 05 September 2011, which was the deadline stated in the previous PIT extension letter. An emended deadline of 03 October 2011 was given

11. I am satisfied that the contents of the initial letter and subsequent PIT extension letter and their respective deadline extensions were fully in accordance with section 10(3) of the Act.

12. The final response to Ms Asher was sent on 28 September 2011, which was the fifty-fifth working day. Consideration of the response

13. The original response sent to Ms Asher neither confirmed nor denied whether we held the information requested, citing sections 23(5), 24(2), 31(3) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act. These exemptions relate to information about, or relating to, certain security bodies, national security and law enforcement. OSCT concluded that the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighed the public interest in confirming whether or not the information is held.

14. The relevant sections of 23(5), 24(2), 31(3) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act state:
23 Information supplied by, or relating to, the security services (1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).
(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise of, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).

3

________________________________________

24 National security
1) Information which does not fall within subsection 23(1) is exempt information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security 31 Law enforcement (1)Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice—
(a)the prevention or detection of crime,
(3)The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
40 Personal information (5)The duty to confirm or deny— (a)does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1), and (b)does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent that either— (i)the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or (ii)by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Data Protection Act 1998 the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that Act (data subject’s right to be informed whether personal data being processed).

15. Section 23(5) is an absolute exemption which does not require consideration of the public interest test. Section 40(5) is not an absolute exemption, but in certain circumstances functions as if it is because of the effect of section 44(1) and (2).

16. Sections 24(2) and 31(3) are qualified exemptions which are subject to the public interest test in order to assess the considerations in favour of confirming or denying whether the authority holds the relevant information against those favouring the exclusion of the duty to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act. Public interest test

17. I have assessed the request again and the public interest test arguments in favour of confirming or denying that we hold the relevant

4
________________________________________

information, against those favouring the exclusion of the duty to comply with section 1(1)(a) of the Act under section 24(2) (national security) and section 31(3) (law enforcement). The public interest test for each exemption will be considered in tandem.

18. First, I will consider the public interest arguments in favour of confirming or denying whether we hold the information requested. The Home Office recognises there is a general public interest in transparency and openness in Government as openness in Government increases public trust, and engagement. As the original response stated, if we confirmed or denied whether we held the information it would assist the public in establishing whether the Home Office has or has not had any interest in the issues surrounding the attempted murder of Martin McGartland. There is speculation about the details of the incident with little firm information in the public domain. Increased openness about the information which may or may not be held would increase transparency and understanding in this area and inform public debate

19. Set against these considerations, if we were to confirm or deny whether such information was or was not held, we might prejudice the Government’s ability to safeguard national security. Confirming whether the information is or is not held could reveal the techniques, if any, which are undertaken by law enforcement agencies, for example the police or those bodies listed in section 23(3) of the Act, which would confirm any public speculation about the nature of an operation and its purpose. It is clearly not in the public interest to confirm or deny whether such law enforcement activities are taking place or to provide information about the nature of any such activities, which could potentially benefit people who are intending to carry out criminal activities. Confirming or denying whether we hold the information could affect the behaviour of those subject to any law enforcement investigations and possibly harm the efficacy any such investigations.

20. As the original response stated, it is clearly not in the public interest to confirm the capabilities of the UK authorities and the techniques that they may, or may not use, to safeguard the country. This is in line with usual practice in not commenting on the activities of the security and intelligence agencies and should not be taken as conclusive evidence that such information does or does not exist.

21. I consider that in this instance, the balance of the public interest test in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming or denying whether we hold the information. I therefore uphold the original decision taken by IMS neither to confirm nor deny whether we hold the information requested by virtue of sections 23(5), 24(2), 31(3) and 40(5) of the Act.

22. As the original response stated, this should not be taken as evidence that any such information is or is not held by the Home Office.

5

________________________________________

Conclusions

23. OSCT complied with section 17(1) of the Act as they informed Ms Asher of the exemptions which maintain our exclusion to neither confirm nor deny that we held the information requested.

24. OSCT complied with section 10(3) and 17(3) of the Act as they informed Ms Asher that consideration of the public interest was required for section 24(2) (national security) and 31(3) (law enforcement). 25. I conclude that OSCT were correct in applying section 23(5), 24(2), 31(3) and 40(5)(b)(i) neither to confirm nor deny whether the Home Office holds the information requested. This should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information is or is not held by the Home Office.

Information Access Team

Home Office

28 October 2011

6
________________________________________

Annex: OSCT’s full initial response

Date: 28 September 2011

Our reference: 19338

Dear Ms Asher,

Thank you for your email of 14 July requesting correspondence held by the Home Office concerning the attempted murder of Martin McGartland. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

In response to your request we neither confirm nor deny whether we hold the information you requested by virtue of sections 23(5), 24(2), 31(3) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act. These sections of the Act pertain respectively to information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters, national security, law enforcement, and third party personal information.

These sections exempt us from our duty to say whether or not we hold the information you ask for. Annex A to this letter provides further explanation of why the exemptions under sections 23(5) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act are seen to be engaged towards your request.

Annex B to this letter provides further explanation of why the exemptions under sections 24(2) and 31(3) of the Act are seen to be engaged towards your request as well as an assessment of the requisite public interest considerations that the reliance on these exemptions entail.

Please note this response should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested does or does not exist.

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference 19305. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.

Information Access Team
Home Office
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

e-mail: [email address] As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely

J Fanshaw

7
________________________________________

Annex A

Explanation of exemptions under sections 23(5) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act The Home Office neither confirms nor denies that it holds information you have requested pursuant to the exemptions at section 23(5) and 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act. These exemptions are defined by the Act as follows:
23(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the
bodies specified in subsection (3).
(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise of, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).
40(1) Any information to which a request for information relates is exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data
subject.
(5)The duty to confirm or deny – does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of subsection (1).
(b) does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent that either—
(i) the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial that would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart from this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section 10 of the M4Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the exemptions in section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or Consideration of the public interest Under the provisions of the Act the exemption at section 23(5) is what is termed an ‘absolute’ exemption. To this extent the Home Office is not required to undertake an assessment of the balance of public interest in its application. Similarly, the exemption at section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Act absolves the Home Office from the requirement to say whether or not we hold information, where to do so would contravene any of the data protection principles of the Data Protection Act.

Annex B Explanation of exemptions under sections 24(2) and 31(3) of the Act The Home Office also neither confirms nor denies that it holds information you have requested pursuant to the exemptions at section 24(2) and 31(3) of the Act. These exemptions are defined by the Act as follows:

8
_______________________________________

24(1) Information which does not fall within subsection 23(1) is exempt information if exemption from section 1(1)(b) is required for the purpose of
safeguarding national security.
(2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, exemption from section 1(1)(a) is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security. 31(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would likely to, prejudice –

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(c) the administration of justice,

(d) to (i)
(3) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1).

Consideration of the balance of Public Interest
Some of the exemptions in the Act, referred to as ‘qualified exemptions’, are subject to a public interest test (PIT). The exemptions under section 24(2) and 31(3) are two such exemptions. The PIT is used, in the case of these two exemptions, to assess the balance of the public interest for and against the requirement to say whether requested information is held or not. The ‘public interest’ is not the same as what interests the public. In carrying out a PIT we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole.

The ‘right to know’ must be balanced against the need to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of the public. The Act is ‘applicant blind’. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone, including those who might represent a threat an individual or to the UK. On this basis please find set out below a consideration of the balance of public interest with respect to neither confirming nor denying whether information you have requested is held by the Home Office.

Section 24(2) – National Security
Public interest considerations in favour of confirming whether the information is held The Home Office recognises that there is a general public interest in transparency and openness in Government. Such openness would lead to a deeper public knowledge in matters relating to national security. There is also a public interest in understanding what information the Home Office may or may not hold about the attempted murder of this particular individual. Public interest considerations in favour of maintaining the exclusion of the duty to either confirm or deny

9
________________________________________

Set against these considerations, if we were to confirm or deny that such information was or was not held, we might prejudice the Government’s ability to maintain national security. It is not in the public interest to disclose the capabilities of the UK authorities (including bodies listed at section 23(3) of the Act) and the techniques that they may or may not use to safeguard the country. This is in line with usual practice in not commenting on the activities of the security and intelligence agencies and should not be taken as evidence that any such information does or does not exist. We have concluded that safeguarding national security interests is of paramount importance and that in all circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming or denying whether we hold the information requested.

Section 31(3) – Law Enforcement
Public interest considerations in favour of confirming whether the information is held Please see above as the same general public interest factors apply in respect of this exemption. In addition there is a public interest in understanding the law enforcement process in respect of this particular unsolved crime. Public interest considerations in favour of maintaining the exclusion of the duty to either confirm or deny To reveal what information the Home Office has, or has not, on this subject would be likely to be prejudicial to the law enforcement process. The attempted murder of this man is still an unsolved crime. We have determined that maintaining the exclusion of the duty to confirm or deny outweighs the public interest in confirming or denying whether we hold the information.

10
Link Here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/79...

Shocking. This is what they do ... they cover-up, they protect IRA terrorists and they break the Law.

What is the ICO doing about all of these complaints, are they blind???????

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

The Home Office are having trouble sending a response direct to this request so sent the PDF above to the WhatDoTheyKnow admin team directly today.

Ganesh - WhatDoTheyKnow volunteer

Except I got the wrong request. It's now been moved to here:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ja...

Ganesh - WhatDoTheyKnow volunteer

Theresa May MP, Home Secretary (http://www.tmay.co.uk/) has claimed in a written, signed statement (dated 12-02-2014) to the High court in London that she can not confirm or deny that Martin McGartland was an agent. However, the Home office, Jack Straw, Home office solicitors have already done so, both in public (press release), in correspondence and by speaking to the media about the Martin McGartland. Martin McGartland says; "The reason why Theresa May MP, Home Secretary and MI5 are now misleading public, Court is in a desperate attempt to try to get a Judge, court to agree to a CMP aka Secret hearing. I say this is because Theresa May MP, Home Secretary, MI5 and HMG want to cover-up their own wrongdoing and corruption while dealing with my (Martin McGartland case)."

The Home Office and Jack Straw have already confirmed a number of times that Martin McGartland had been an agent.

Jack Straw confirmed same in a letter he wrote concerning Martin McGartland, see here; http://www.scribd.com/doc/101345944/jack...

Home office and Northumbria police confirm that Martin McGartland was an agent, that they were offering Martin McGartland a new identity; Page 1 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/55690453/North...

Page 2 - http://www.scribd.com/doc/55692576/Page-...

Home office even spoke to press about Martin McGartland, they claimed they had given Martin McGartland advice on his security, see here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Home+Offic...

Home Office, their solicitors wrote to BBC confirming that 1. Martin McGartland had been an agent 2. That they were offering Martin McGartland a new identity as a result, see here; http://www.scribd.com/doc/195869909/Mi5-...

Why is the Home Office and even a Government Minister now misleading the Court and the public by now claiming they can not confirm or deny that Marin McGartland was, had been a Spy, agent. The above evidence, penned by themselves, proves they have already confirmed he was, they have done so many times both in public and also in written correspondence.