Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

I am requesting via the Freedom of Information Act access to the entirety of the information, (as detailed under section 84 of FOIA), held by Crown Prosecution Service concerning the attempted murder of Martin McGartland as follows;

1. The facts known to Crown Prosecution Service 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 Crown Prosecution Service containing all/any references to, or otherwise, relating to the shooting of Martin McGartland on the 17th June 1999.

Please ensure you provide copies of those parts of the recorded information containing such references or related information, including the context in which the reference is made.

3. Part 3.7 of the CPS code [http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/... states that; "Parliament has decided that a limited number of very serious or sensitive offences should only be taken to court with the agreement of the DPP. These are called “consent” cases. In such cases, the DPP or prosecutors acting on his behalf apply the Code in deciding whether to give consent to a prosecution."

Did the CPS at anytime deal with the Martin McGartland shooting case as if it were, "very serious or sensitive offence(s)" if so, please supply full details. Please also confirm if the DPP was involved and or if the DPP gave any advice and or consent regarding whether or not there were to be prosecutions against any person/s arrested in connection with the Martin McGartland attempted murder case.

4. Did the CPS or the DPP deem no prosecutions against any person/s arrested relating to the Martin McGartland case because it was 'Not In the Public Interest'? If so, Please also include in your reply, the reason(s) why the CPS and or the DPP determined it was 'Not In the Public Interest' to charge any person/s arrested in this case.

5. Please supply full details regarding the circumstances in which the DPP becomes involved with case/s and or when the CPS call on the DPP. Was the DPP involved with the Martin McGartland case at anytime during the past 12 years? If so, please supply full details, reason/s for any involvement, dates etc.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear J Asher,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

Thank you for your request for information.

Your request was received on 14/07/2011 and I am dealing with it under the
terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please note there is a
twenty working day limit (from receipt of request) in which we are
required to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The deadline for your request is 11/08/2011. However, we will endeavour to
respond sooner.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, I will
let you know the likely charges before proceeding.

Yours sincerely,

Information Management Unit

Tel: 020 3357 0899

Fax: 020 3357 0229

E-mail: [CPS request email]

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

2 Attachments

Please find attached our response to your request.

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

Both of the links you have attached to you reply are broken, I can not open nor read them. Please re-send by return.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Asher

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

2 Attachments

These are word documents and can be opened as read only. We have successfully opened these from the Whatdotheyknow website. If you go to the attachments and click download.

I attach further copies of word documents, you should be able to click onto to read only.

If you are unable to access we can send hard copies to you in the post.

show quoted sections

This is not a request for internal review.

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

In your reply dated 8th August 2011 you wrote;

Dear Ms Asher,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

I refer to your Freedom of Information request which was received on the 14 July 2011.

It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. Information disclosed under it is thereafter deemed to be in the public domain, and therefore freely available to the general public upon request.

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act creates a statutory right of access to recorded information held by public authorities i.e. the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). This right is to be informed whether the information requested is held by the public authority or not, and if the information exists, for it to be communicated. A public authority must reply to such a request promptly and in any event, not later than twenty working days after receipt.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”) gives a right of public access to information held by public authorities. It is very important in the context of your request that you understand that if the information is disclosed to you then it is considered to be in the public domain. In other words the general public would have access to all of the information disclosed to you. I hope you can appreciate the implications of making public the content of a criminal case file in a case where no offender has yet been brought to justice.

The right of disclosure under the Act is not an absolute one. The Act creates exemptions and in the main these exemptions are the subject of a balancing exercise as to whether disclosure is in the public interest.

This involves weighing the prejudice that may be caused to an individual investigation or prosecution. It also involves consideration of the prejudice that may be caused to the investigatory and prosecution processes generally. Against these factors must be weighed the public interest in favour of open disclosure of information held by public authorities.

In your request you ask for the following information:-

1. The facts known to Crown Prosecution Service 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 Crown Prosecution Service containing all/any references to, or otherwise, relating to the shooting of Martin McGartland on the 17th June 1999.

Please ensure you provide copies of those parts of the recorded information containing such references or related information, including the context in which the reference is made.

(Your Reply) In response to questions one and two of your request, this information is exempt from disclosure under Sections 30(1) (c), 30(2)(b), 40(2) of the FOIA. Please see attached Section 17 Refusal Notice.

3. Part 3.7 of the CPS code [http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/... states that; "Parliament has decided that a limited number of very serious or sensitive offences should only be taken to court with the agreement of the DPP. These are called “consent” cases. In such cases, the DPP or prosecutors acting on his behalf apply the Code in deciding whether to give consent to a prosecution."

Did the CPS at anytime deal with the Martin McGartland shooting case as if it were, "very serious or sensitive offence(s)" if so, please supply full details. Please also confirm if the DPP was involved and or if the DPP gave any advice and or consent regarding whether or not there were to be prosecutions against any person/s arrested in connection with the Martin McGartland attempted murder case.

(Your Reply) None of the offences considered to date are ones which require consent as referred to above.

4. Did the CPS or the DPP deem no prosecutions against any person/s arrested relating to the Martin McGartland case because it was 'Not In the Public Interest'? If so, please also include in your reply, the reason(s) why the CPS and or the DPP determined it was 'Not In the Public Interest' to charge any person/s arrested in this case.

(Your Reply) The Code for Crown Prosecutors requires the evidential test to be met before the public interest test is applied. To date there has been insufficient evidence to proceed against anyone in relation to this matter so the public interest has not become a consideration.

5. Please supply full details regarding the circumstances in which the DPP becomes involved with case/s and or when the CPS call on the DPP. Was the DPP involved with the Martin McGartland case at anytime during the past 12 years? If so, please supply full details, reason/s for any involvement, dates etc.

(Your Reply) Our records show that the DPP in post in 1999 was notified about the existence of this investigation. There have been three DPPs since 1999 when the offence took place. Normal reporting procedures mean that they may have been notified of the existence of this police investigation but none of them have been involved in any decision making in relation to the case.

If you are unhappy with the decisions made in relation to your request from the Crown Prosecution Service you may ask for an internal review. You should contact the Information Management Unit (Freedom of Information Appeals), Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge, London, SE1 9HS.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review, you have the right to complain directly to the Information Commissioner, who can be contacted at: Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Asher

Dear Sir or Madam,

In my requests 1 and 2 I asked for following;

1. The facts known to Crown Prosecution Service 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 Crown Prosecution Service containing all/any references to, or otherwise, relating to the shooting of Martin McGartland on the 17th June 1999.

Please ensure you provide copies of those parts of the recorded information containing such references or related information, including the context in which the reference is made.

In Reply the CPS claim that; "In response to questions one and two of your request, this information is exempt from disclosure under Sections 30(1) (c), 30(2)(b), 40(2) of the FOIA. Please see attached Section 17 Refusal Notice."

Please ensure that the CPS supply me with detailed reason/s for why they believe each of the following exemption/s which they rely on;

30(1)(c)
30(2)(b)
40(2)

apply to my requests 1 and 2 as above. The CPS cannot simply make a blanket refusal.

In any event 30(1)(c), 30(2)(b) and 40(2)can not apply when I am seeking; 1, 'The facts known to Crown Prosecution Service which links the IRA to the attempted murder of Martin McGartland on 17th June 1999.' and 2, 'All recorded information (as detailed under section 84 of FOIA) held by Crown Prosecution Service containing all/any references to, or otherwise, relating to the shooting of Martin McGartland on the 17th June 1999.' The IRA are a terrorist group, how would releasing above information, i.e. a terrorist group being involved in the attempted murder of a British Agent, how would releasing such information in any way prejudice any investigation/s and or any prosecution? Regards the public interest test, there is a very strong public interest in this case, the requested information for following reasons;
a, There are very serious questions concerning a cover-up by CPS, Northumbria Police, Home Office, IPCC, MI5, Northern Ireland Office, PPS, PSNI and others when dealing with this case. This latest request and CPS's reply raises further questions regards same, to the extent that they too are continuing to cover up IRA involvement in the case and using all sorts of lame excuses to do so and are breaking the law while doing so, the public have a right to know.

b, The IRA were on a so called ceasefire at the time of the Martin McGarland shooting and there is questions concerning the above parties covering-up IRA involvement in the Martin McGartland case. Again, the public have a right to know if the terrorist group the IRA, were involved in the shooting and more so, if the prosecution authorities, including the police, are protecting terrorists or terrorist group the IRA, bt covering up their involvement in the Martin McGartland shooting.

In my number 5 request I asked following, 'Please supply full details regarding the circumstances in which the DPP becomes involved with case/s and or when the CPS call on the DPP. Was the DPP involved with the Martin McGartland case at anytime during the past 12 years? If so, please supply full details, reason/s for any involvement, dates etc.'

In your Reply you inform me that, 'Our records show that the DPP in post in 1999 was notified about the existence of this investigation. There have been three DPPs since 1999 when the offence took place. Normal reporting procedures mean that they may have been notified of the existence of this police investigation but none of them have been involved in any decision making in relation to the case.'

The CPS have not dealt with my request within the law, i.e. they are required to release ALL non-exempt information which is requested. I asked, 'Was the DPP involved with the Martin McGartland case at anytime during the past 12 years? If so, please supply full details, reason/s for any involvement, dates etc.' My request was very clear, i.e. ' ... please supply full details, reason/s for any involvement, dates etc.' Please release all of the information to me by return.

I also find it concerning that the CPS are delaying this request.

Yours faithfully

Jo Asher

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Ms Asher,

We have responded to your request and our dealings with this are now closed unless you wish to make a request for an internal review.

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

Request for internal review.

You have not dealt with this matter. You are doing what CPS have been doing for the past 12 years, covering-up an attempted murder and also the CPS's own wrongdoing.

The CPS have not dealt with my request correctly nor have they dealt with my above correspondence or supplied me with the further information I requested.

As part of your internal review the CPS must supply me with the further information I have requested and they must also explain reasons why they are using above exemptions in each on my requests.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Asher

Jo Asher left an annotation ()

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.

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

Can you please confirm that you are dealing with my request for an internal review?

Yours sincerely,

Jo Asher

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Ms Asher

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST – INTERNAL REVIEW

 

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email dated 17 September.

 

Your email has now been referred for an internal review and will be
assigned to a Crown Prosecution Service official who was not involved with
the original decision in relation to your FOI request (our ref: 2868).

 

We normally expect to complete internal reviews within 20 working days,
although more complex cases may take longer.  We will however to endeavour
to respond to you as quickly as practicable.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mr P Willman

Information Management Unit

 

 

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland left an annotation ()

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

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Ms Asher

 

I am writing to inform you that we will not be in a position to meet the
20 working day response date for your internal review.  I apologise for
this delay.  We will endeavour to respond by 11 November.

 

Regards

 

Mr P Willman

Information Management Unit

 

 

show quoted sections

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

You claim in your reply of today that, 'I am writing to inform you that we will not be in a position to meet the 20 working day response date for your internal review. I apologise for this delay. We will endeavour to respond by 11 November.'

This is totally unacceptable to me. The CPS have given me no explanation whatsoever to explain why they are not able to deal with my request within the 20 working day limit.

I now want a full and detailed explanation from the CPS as to why they are delaying this matter and why they are now asking for a further 20 working days to deal with this request. Why could the CPS not deal with such a request within the 20 working day limit.

If the CPS do not supply me with a full and detailed explanation I will expect them to reply to my request by return, within the first 20 working day limit.

This is what happens when the CPS lie, cover-up, conceal and break the law. They become unstuck.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Asher

Penhale Andrew, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Ms Asher

I am writing in response to your e-mail of the 12th October 2011.

Your Freedom of Information request has been referred to me for an internal review. Unfortunately, due to the pressure of my existing commitments, I am not in a position to meet the initial deadline of today. I should be in a position to respond fully within 20 working days.

I apologise if this is inconvenient to you.

I note your comments in the final paragraph of your e-mail but do not propose to respond to them.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Penhale
Deputy Head of Division, Central Fraud Group
Tel: +44 (0) 203 357 0493
Mob: +44 (0) 7749 646070

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland left an annotation ()

POPPYCOCK - CPS, State Cover-up. www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Dear Penhale Andrew,

Your telling me that, "Unfortunately, due to the pressure of my existing commitments, I am not in a position to meet the initial deadline of today. I should be in a position to respond fully within 20" Are you the only person who is able to deal with this case? You are aware that such requests must be dealt with within 20 working days. I am not at all happy by the delay nor with the reason given.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Asher

Penhale Andrew, Crown Prosecution Service

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Asher

Please find attached my internal review response.

Andrew Penhale
Deputy Head of Division, Central Fraud Group
Tel: +44 (0) 203 357 0493
Mob: +44 (0) 7749 646070

show quoted sections

Martin McGartland left an annotation ()

Anyone reading this request can see that everyone within the CPS who is involved with my case is party to the cover-up. Note how the CPS took almost 40 days to dealt with this request, but they did not carry out a proper review i.e. just have a look at the request that was first made to them, they did not deal with this nor did they supply requested explanation. It is very concerning that the ICO are allowing this sort of stuff to take place.

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Dear Penhale Andrew,

I have this morning made a complaint to the ICO (My Ref: JACPS1) as the CPS have not dealt with this request. The CPS have also failed to deal with my main FOIA request as part of your internal review. The CPS have also failed to supply me with the information and also the explanation I asked for concerning their reasons for refusing me the requested information.

The CPS are covering-up IRA and terrorists involvement in the 1999 attempted murder of Martin McGartland. You too are party to that cover-up.

Yours sincerely,

Jo Asher

Martin McGartland left an annotation ()

The CPS did not deal with the request nor did they deal with the main part of this request within their 'Internal Review' (which took them faaaaaaar longer than the 20 working days. It is a CPS cover-up. The CPS are covering-up IRA and terrorist involvement in my attempted murder. This is the CPS's 'Internal Review' findings. It is a JOKE, Closed shop.
-------------------------------------------------------

Ms Jo Asher

Jo Asher [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Your ref:

Our ref:
FOI Request

IR/20/11 ,,,,,,,

11th November 2011

Dear Ms Asher

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

I write further to your e-mail of the 17th of September, requesting an internal review of the CPS Freedom of Information Unit response, dated 9th of September, to your original request of the 17th of August. Please accept my apologies for my delay in responding, which was caused by pressure of my existing workload.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places a general duty on public authorities to allow access to official information, subject to a number of statutory exemptions.

You made the following requests:

1. Please supply all information, details concerning any contact between CPS, including its FOI dept, and Northumbria Police between 14th July 2011 and the date this request is answered.

2. Please supply all information, details concerning any contact between CPS, including its FOI dept, and Northumbria Police during the 12 months, between 14th July 2010 and 14th July 2011 concerning the Martin McGartland case.

3, What are the procedures within FOI dept when dealing with FOI requests relating to Martin McGartland, his attempted murder case,
i.e.

a, Are such requests dealt with as normal, like any other case? If not supply full details.

b, Do such requests need to be directed to a point of contact or person/s within CPS, if so who, why ... please supply all information.

c. Are those FOI requests dealt with by FOI officers or are they sent or past to others outside the FOI dept? If so, please supply full details/information, name/ of such person/s that requests are sent to and/or reported to, including reasons for same.

The FOI Unit responded as follows:

In response to point 1 – Section 1(4) of the FOIA states that a requester is entitled to information held at the time the request is received, subject to exemptions. We are therefore not obliged to consider the period 14 July 2011 to the date of this letter. We hold no information falling within the scope of this request.

In response to point 2 - On 13.1 11 our Counter Terrorism Division contacted a Superintendent at Northumbria police who confirmed that for the last four months they have been inundated with related FOI requests and so had the PSNI. Accordingly, they have received guidance from the ACPO Central Referral Unit.

On 11.3.11 the reviewing lawyer contacted a Detective Superintendent at Northumbria Police for an update and various aspects of the case were discussed.

In response to point 3 – The CPS has a central dedicated Unit that deals with all requests for information received under the FOIA. All requests received are dealt with in the same way. Requests received are allocated to individual members of the Unit who then have to find out what information the department holds. This involves contacting the relevant part of the business. Once the Unit has identified what information is held the responsible member of the Unit will draft and send the response to the requester.

In your response of the 17th of September you state that the CPS has not dealt with your request and you seek an internal review. You also make a series of allegations of cover-up and wrongdoing, to which I do not propose to respond.

Having examined the questions set out in your original request and the subsequent responses, it seems to me that the CPS has already provided a response to your questions. The statutory exemptions have not been applied to withhold information, relating to this request.

The original FOIA decision was communicated to you in clear terms and explained your right to a review. I am satisfied that the handling of the request has also been dealt with correctly.

If you are not content with the outcome of this internal review, you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision, at the Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Penhale
Deputy Head, Central Fraud Group
Link Here: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/79...
ENDS

I for one can not wait to see what the ICO do about this complaint.

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Martin McGartland left an annotation ()

This is the correct link to the CPS's 11th Nov 2011 reply, as above: http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/79...

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

1 Attachment

Please find attached Mr Gunn’s  response to a request for an IR.

 

 

 

*********************************************************************
This e-mail is private and is intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients.
If you are not an intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.

Activity and use of CPS Connect systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the
Criminal Justice Extranet is monitored to secure their effective operation and for other
lawful business purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored
and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org