Martin McGartland Shooting

Jo Asher made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

The request was refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

From: Jo Asher

17 August 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

You confirmed to me in your 14th July 2011 reply that, ‘Some
requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the
fullest possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the
case.’

1. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS
and Northumbria Police relating to this or any other FOIA request.

2. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS
and Northumbria Police, including reason/s for such contact,
relating to the Martin McGartland case between 14th July 2011 and
the date this request is answered.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Link to this

From: Jo Asher

17 August 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

This link relates to above request,
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/al...

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

18 August 2011

Dear Ms. Asher

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011080002950
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 17/08/2011. I note you seek
access to the following information:

"You confirmed to me in your 14th July 2011 reply that, ***Some requests
may also require either full or partial transference to another public
authority in order to answer your query in the fullest possible way.
Again, you will be informed if this is the case.***
1. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS and
Northumbria Police relating to this or any other FOIA request.
2. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS and
Northumbria Police, including reason/s for such contact, relating to the
Martin McGartland case between 14th July 2011 and the date this request is
answered. "

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

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

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact me at the above e-mail address, quoting the reference number
above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Policy and Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Ask to have the decision looked at again ***

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

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

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

Link to this

From: Jo Asher

17 September 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Your in breach of the FOIA. Please let me have your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Link to this

Jo Asher left an annotation (17 September 2011)

Quote-marks 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.

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

20 September 2011

Dear Ms Asher

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011080002950
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 17/08/2011.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

·        You confirmed to me in your 14th July 2011 reply that, ‘Some
requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the
fullest possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the
case.’

1. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS and
Northumbria Police relating to this or any other FOIA request.

2. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS and
Northumbria Police, including reason/s for such contact, relating to the
Martin McGartland case between 14th July 2011 and the date this request is
answered.

DECISION

I have decided to refuse your request as it has been deemed a “Vexatious
Request” under the provisions of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (the Act).

Section 14(1) of the Act provides:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the request is vexatious.

It should be stated quite clearly from the outset that section 14(1) is
applied to the request, not the requestor. However, when determining
whether section 14(1) should be applied to a request which is considered
to be 'vexatious', a public authority may take into account the context
and background to the particular request. This is supported in case law
set by previous Information Tribunals, which states that 'In most cases,
the vexatious nature of a request will only emerge after considering the
request in its context and background.  As part of that context, the
identity of the requester and past dealings with the public authority can
be taken in to account.'

In EA/2007/0114 involving the London Borough of Camden, the Tribunal
stated more specifically that "A request which, when taken in isolation,
is quite benign, may show its vexatious quality only when viewed in
context. That context may include other requests made by the applicant to
that public authority (whether complied with or refused), the number and
subject matter of the requests, as well as the history of other dealings
between the applicant and the public authority. The effect a request will
have may be determined as much, or indeed more, by that context as by the
request itself."

ICO Guidance sets out a number of criteria relevant to the identification
of a request as 'vexatious' and the following factors have been considered
in relation to these requests:
 
The request would impose a significant burden;
The request does not have any serious purpose or value;
The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance;
The request has the effect of harassing the public authority; or
The request can otherwise fairly be characterised as obsessive or
manifestly
unreasonable.
 

The Information Commissioner's 'applicants charter' for responsible use of
the Act recommends that an applicant consider a number of factors before
making an FOIA request. This includes:

Is the request the latest in a series of requests that have already been
made?
Will another request serve any further purpose?

If the request is about a changing situation, would it be better to allow
a reasonable period of time to pass before making a further request?

 (A copy of the charter is available at the following link:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...

It is the view of the MPS that this request falls into the vexacious
category as it has been submitted whilst another request on the same
investigation is being considered together with an Internal review into
the handling of your original request is being conducted.

Whislt your original request (Ref No:2011070002215) was refused on cost
grounds you were invited to consider ways of redefining your request.  You
did this and at the same time submitted a request for an internal review
of the decision to apply cost.  The new request has been logged (Ref No
2011080003014) and your request for an internal review has been allocated
and logged as ref no 2011080003415.  This will be dealt with in a
different office.  At the same time you have submitted as new request (Ref
No 2011080002950) which seeks information about discussions between the
MPS and Northumbria about the handling of your previous FOIUA request.

The following categories relate to why your request has been considered to
be vexacious.

The request would impose a significant burden;

By making the follow up requests before the other requests have been held
by the NPS long enough to be effectively considered and analysed you are
effectively delaying the handling of all of you requests.  There are a
limited number of staff within the MPS who would be handling these
requests and the approach you have taken means that they are being asked
to answer specific questions about the handling of one case, which you
have already redefined and resubmitted.

The request is designed to cause disruption or annoyance;

If your request was not designed to create disruption you might have
chosen to allow the Internal Review and the redefined requests to be
handled before submitted the latest request seeking details of any
discussion between the MPS and other forces.  The internal review would
consider all aspects of the first case.

For these reasons, section 14(1) is applied to this request on the grounds
that, taking into account the context, background and current
circumstances in which the request has been made, the request imposes a
significant burden, is designed to cause disruption, has the effect of
harassing the public authority and can otherwise fairly be characterised
as  manifestly unreasonable.

The Information Commissioner's guidance on vexatious and repeated requests
is available at:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/...

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
or contact Karen Fox on telephone number 0207230 4657 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
Information Manager

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Metropolitan Police Service is here for London - on the streets and in
your community, working with you to make our city safer.

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

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

Link to this

From: Jo Asher

26 September 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I'm seeking an internal review.

I have to say that you have lost me, I do not understand what your
going on about. I suspect you don't either. MPS are involved in a
cover-up concerning the Martin McGartland case. This request can
not be regarded as having been refused on grounds of cost/s nor as
'vexatious' . This has been used by bent cops, HMG and others to
cover-up their own wrongdoing while dealing with requests relating
to. Put simply HMG (all the other puppets) are covering-up an
attempted murder that was carried out by IRA terrorists. We also
know that MPS are experts when in comes to cover-ups and lying,
they are in the news again today.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

7 November 2011

Dear Ms Asher

Freedom of Information Internal Review Reference No: 2011090004349

I write in connection with your letter dated 26/09/2011 requesting that
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated 20/09/2011
to your request for information relating to:

* FOIA request reference no. 2011080002950

I have unfortunately been unable to complete a full internal review within
our target response time of 20 working days.  The MPS endeavour to respond
to your complaint ASAP and in any case no later than 01/12/2011.

Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as
soon as possible.

Please accept my apologies for the delay and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further queries concerning this matter, please contact
me via the address at the top of this letter quoting the reference number
above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Brian Wilson
FOIA Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Link to this

From: Jo Asher

11 November 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

You are required to deal with this request within 20 working days.
If I have not had your reply by 18th November I am making a
complaint to the ICO.

Yours faithfully,

Jo Asher

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

19 January 2012

Freedom of Information Internal Review Reference No: 2011090004349

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 26/09/2011 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response dated
20/09/2011 to Freedom of Information request reference number
2011080002950.  The request was as follows:

You confirmed to me in your 14th July 2011 reply that, ‘Some requests may
also require either full or partial transference to another public
authority in order to answer your query in the fullest possible way.
Again, you will be informed if this is the case.’

1. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS and
Northumbria Police relating to this or any other FOIA request.

2. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS and
Northumbria Police, including reason/s for such contact, relating to the
Martin McGartland case between 14th July 2011 and the date this request is
answered.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:
·        Set aside the original decision

The MPS response dated 20/09/2011 fully exempted the information requested
subject to section 17(5) and section 14(1) of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

I have decided that the information requested is fully exempt subject to
the provisions of section 17(5) and section 12(2).

REASON FOR DECISION        

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 and related documents that are referred to in this letter.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 creates a statutory right of access to
information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a
request must confirm whether they hold the requested information and if
so, communicate it to the applicant. Furthermore, the Freedom of
Information Act is designed to place information into the public domain.
Therefore, once access to information is granted to one person under the
Act, it is then considered to be public information and must be
communicated to any individual upon request.

The right of access to information is subject to a number of exemptions
that are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information
that is not suitable for release.

Section 12 - Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit

Under Section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, public
authorities are not required to comply with a request for information if
the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit.

The appropriate limit has been specified in regulations and for agencies
outside central Government; this is set at £450.00.   This represents the
estimated cost of one person spending 18 hours [at a rate of £25 per hour]
in determining whether the MPS holds the information, and then locating,
retrieving and extracting the information.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Guidance titled ‘Using the
Fees Regulations’ states:

‘In estimating whether complying with a request would exceed the
appropriate limit, Regulation 4 (3) states that an authority can only take
into account the costs it reasonably expects to incur in:

• determining whether it holds the information;
• locating the information, or a document containing it;
• retrieving the information, or a document containing it; and
• extracting the information from a document containing it.’

The ICO guidance further states:

'Section 12 makes it clear that a public authority does not have to make a
precise calculation of the costs of complying with a request.  Only an
estimate is required ... what amounts to a reasonable estimate can only be
considered on a case by case basis…where a reasonable estimate has been
made that the appropriate limit would be exceeded, there is no requirement
for a public authority to undertake work up to the limit.’

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Your correspondence dated 20/09/2011 asks:

‘1. Please supply all information concerning any contact between MPS and
Northumbria Police relating to this or any other FOIA request.’

I estimate that to answer question 1 alone would exceed the appropriate
cost limit.

Since the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act in 2005, up
until the end of July 2011, the month prior to your request, the MPS has
received in excess of 20,000 FoIA requests.

Based upon the volume of FoIA requests received by the MPS, it would be
necessary to retrieve and extract all the information relevant to a
particular request within 3.24 seconds. This has been calculated by
dividing the appropriate cost limit (18 hours or 1080 minutes) by the
approximate number of FoIA requests (20,000).  This has been calculated as
follows:  
Appropriate limit (1080) ÷ No. of FoIA requests (20,000) = Time required per
request
Or
1080 ÷ 20,000 = 0.054 (i.e. 3.24 seconds)

Freedom of Information Act requests received by the MPS and associated
correspondence are captured on a case management system called MetRIC (Met
Requests for Information and Correspondence).

MetRIC does enable searches to be conducted on key words.  However, such
searches would not detect correspondence or contact that was not captured
on MetRIC or hard copy correspondence that was captured using a scanner.
 The maximum number of results returned by a single search in MetRIC is
300, although it is possible to specify different parameters such as
relevant time periods.  In response to your request, MetRIC was searched
for the terms ‘Northumbria’ and ‘FoIA’ in relation to records created in
2010.  This identified over 200 records.

Using this figure as a basis, I estimate that there may be approximately
1400 records relating to FoIA requests received by the MPS since 2005.  I
have estimated this by multiplying the approximate number of records per
year (200) by the number of years since the Freedom of Information Act was
implemented (7).

This search method would not have detected hard copy correspondence that
has been scanned and stored on MetRIC as the text would not be searchable.
 To determine whether any information is held in relation to contact
between the MPS and Northumbria Police that is not stored on MetRIC and/or
does not relate to e-mail correspondence would require additional
searches.

The search results relate to records associated with an FoIA request.
Therefore, in some instances, multiple records would relate to the same
FoIA request.

Based upon the volume of records on MetRIC relating to Freedom of
Information Act requests that contain the terms ‘Northumbria’ and ‘FoIA’,
it would be necessary to retrieve and extract all the information relevant
to a particular record within 46 seconds. This has been calculated by
dividing the appropriate cost limit (18 hours or 1080 minutes) by the
number of records (1400).  This has been calculated as follows:
Appropriate limit (1080) ÷ No. of records (1400) = Time required per record
Or
1080 ÷ 1400 = 0.77 (i.e. 46 seconds)

A search on MetRIC using the terms ‘@northumbria.pnn.police.uk’ and ‘FoIA’
for records created since 01/01/2005 was also conducted. This resulted in
375 records being identified.

This search was intended to detect e-mail correspondence.  However, the
search may also detect correspondence that does not constitute contact
between the MPS and Northumbria Police.  For example, an e-mail chain that
includes e-mails that have been sent or copied to a Northumbria Police
e-mail address by non-MPS personnel.  These searches would also detect
instances where the MPS has advised of contact details for Northumbria
Police such as the address of their FoI unit or where FoI requests have
been sent to the MPS and Northumbria police within the same e-mail
correspondence, these records may also be included within the search
results.  The MPS also occasionally receives FoI requests that are sent to
multiple public authorities.  Where FoI requests have been sent to the MPS
and Northumbria police within the same e-mail correspondence, these
records may also be included within the search results.

This search method would not have detected hard copy correspondence that
has been scanned and stored on MetRIC as the text would not be searchable.
 To determine whether any information is held in relation to contact
between the MPS and Northumbria Police that is not stored on MetRIC and/or
does not relate to e-mail correspondence would require additional
electronic and manual searches.

Based upon the volume of records on MetRIC relating to Freedom of
Information Act requests that contain ‘@northumbria.pnn.police.uk’, it
would be necessary to retrieve and extract all the information relevant to
a particular record within 2 minutes and 53 seconds or approximately 3
minutes. This has been calculated by dividing the appropriate cost limit
(18 hours or 1080 minutes) by the number of records (375).  This has been
calculated as follows:
Appropriate limit (1080) ÷ No. of records (375) = Time required per record
Or
1080 ÷ 375 = 2.88 (i.e. 2 minutes 53 seconds)

The estimates above indicate that it would be necessary to retrieve all
information within the scope of your request within at least 3 minutes for
each record identified.  I believe it would reasonably take in excess of 3
minutes per record to determine whether information is held in relation to
any contact with Northumbria Police regarding an FoIA request.  This is
because each record may potentially indicate the existence of additional
information relevant to your request and/or require additional searches to
be conducted.  The broad scope of your request means that it is not
possible to provide a precise estimate of the time that would be required
as this would be subject to a number of variables.

Section 12(4) of the Freedom of Information Act and Regulation 5 of the
Fees Regulations enables the cost of complying with multiple requests to
be aggregated where two or more requests are received within the same 60
working day period and relate to any extent to the same, or similar,
information.  This includes multiple requests within the same
correspondence.  This is explained by the ICO within their ‘Lines to take’
guidance (ref:LTT145) which states:

‘Technically, multiple requests within a single item of correspondence are
separate requests for the purpose of section 12. If a public authority has
applied the exclusion under section 12 to multiple requests within a
single item of correspondence, we need to be satisfied that each request
can be aggregated in accordance with the Fees Regulations.  If it is found
that one of the multiple requests is not similar to the others, the public
authority will not be entitled to refuse that particular request under
section 12 unless complying with the request by itself would exceed the
cost limit.’

http://www.ico.gov.uk/foikb/FOIPolicyAgg...

All of your queries in this instance broadly relate to contact between the
MPS and Northumbria Police in relation to FoIA or Martin McGartland.

Therefore, if the cost of complying with one question (i.e. question 1)
exceeds 18 hours, it follows that the cost of complying with all the
questions posed would also exceed the cost limit.

However, I also note that you submitted another request in relation to
Martin McGartland and Northumbria Police on 17/08/2011 which could also be
aggregated with this request for cost purposes under section 12(4) of the
Act.

With above considerations in mind, I estimate that compliance with your
request would exceed the appropriate cost limit.

Advice and assistance

In order for the MPS to answer your request, it would be necessary to
narrow the scope of your request.  For example, by narrowing the time
period covered by your request and/or limiting the scope of enquires to
records held on the MetRIC system.  

MetRIC also records a description or summary of an FoIA request. This
would typically contain the questions asked by the requestor although this
may be summarised. Therefore, I would suggest limiting the scope of your
queries to FoIA requests that mention ‘Northumbria’ or ‘Northumbria
police’ in the description as this would identify the requests that are
most likely to relate to Northumbria police.  A search of this nature was
conducted in response to your request for an internal review that
identified 11 FoIA requests.

You may also wish to limit your request to e-mail correspondence as this
is the most likely method of communication that would be recorded and the
easiest to locate.

To assist you, I can advise you that I have identified 3 FoIA requests
received by the MPS since July 14th 2011 that refer to Martin McGartland,
including the request that is the subject of this internal review. One of
these consisted of 3 smaller requests that were aggregated together. No
record of MPS correspondence or contact with Northumbria Police has been
found in relation to these FoIA requests on MetRIC.

Your complaint referred to MPS correspondence dated 14/07/2011 that
stated:

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

This text is included on template FoIA acknowledgement letters and is used
to comply with the Code of Practice issued under section 45 of the Freedom
of Information Act which gives advice to public authorities in relation to
transferring requests.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/gui...

As your requests related to the MPS, it was not necessary to transfer your
request to another public authority.

Procedural Issues

Section 10(1) of the Freedom of Information Act provides that:

‘Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply with
section 1(1) promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth
working day following the date of receipt.’

Section 17(5) of the Act requires that, where a public authority relies
upon a claim that section 14 applies, it must give the applicant a notice
stating that fact within twenty working days.

Your initial request was made to the MPS on 17/08/2011 and whereas the
20th working day following receipt of your request was 15/09/2011, a
response was not provided to you until 20/09/2011.  Therefore, I have
determined that a procedural error was made as the MPS have not fully
complied with the requirements of section 10(1) and section 17(5) of the
Act.

I would also like to take this opportunity to apologise for any
inconvenience caused by any delays experienced in relation to your
original request or the internal review.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 3705 or at the address at the top of this letter,
quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Brian Wilson
FOIA Complaints Officer

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 1 (General right of access to information held by public
authorities) of the
Act states:

(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
entitled—
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the
description specified in the request, and
(b) if that is the case, to have that information communicated to him.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Section 10 (Time for compliance with request) of the Act states:

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a public authority must comply
with section 1(1)
promptly and in any event not later than the twentieth working day
following the date of
receipt.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Section 12 (Exemption where cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit)
of the Act states:

(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of
complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.

(2) Subsection (1) does not exempt the public authority from its
obligation to comply with paragraph (a) of section 1(1) unless the
estimated cost of complying with that paragraph alone would exceed the
appropriate limit.

(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “the appropriate limit” means such amount
as may be prescribed, and different amounts may be prescribed in relation
to different cases.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in such
circumstances as may be prescribed, where two or more requests for
information are made to a public authority—
(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting
in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to
be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the
purposes of this section as to the costs to be estimated and as to the
manner in which they are to be estimated.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Section 16 (Duty to provide advice and assistance) of the Act states:
(1) It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and
assistance, so far as it
would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who
propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it.
(2) Any public authority which, in relation to the provision of advice or
assistance in any
case, conforms with the code of practice under section 45 is to be taken
to comply with the duty imposed by subsection (1) in relation to that
case.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Section 17(5) (Refusal of a request) of the Act states:

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that
fact.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

The Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and
Fees) Regulations 2004 state:
The appropriate limit
3.—(1) This regulation has effect to prescribe the appropriate limit
referred to in section 9A(3) and (4) of the 1998 Act and the appropriate
limit referred to in section 12(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act.
(2) In the case of a public authority which is listed in Part I of
Schedule 1 to the 2000 Act, the appropriate limit is £600.
(3) In the case of any other public authority, the appropriate limit is
£450.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/...
Estimating the cost of complying with a request – general
4.—(1) This regulation has effect in any case in which a public authority
proposes to estimate whether the cost of complying with a relevant request
would exceed the appropriate limit.
(2) A relevant request is any request to the extent that it is a request–
(a) for unstructured personal data within the meaning of section 9A(1) of
the 1998 Act, and to which section 7(1) of that Act would, apart from the
appropriate limit, to any extent apply, or
(b) information to which section 1(1) of the 2000 Act would, apart from
the appropriate limit, to any extent apply.
(3) In a case in which this regulation has effect, a public authority may,
for the purpose of its estimate, take account only of the costs it
reasonably expects to incur in relation to the request in–
(a) determining whether it holds the information,
(b) locating the information, or a document which may contain the
information,
(c) retrieving the information, or a document which may contain the
information, and
(d) extracting the information from a document containing it.
(4) To the extent to which any of the costs which a public authority takes
into account are attributable to the time which persons undertaking any of
the activities mentioned in paragraph (3) on behalf of the authority are
expected to spend on those activities, those costs are to be estimated at
a rate of £25 per person per hour.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/...

Estimating the cost of complying with a request – aggregation of related
requests
5.—(1) In circumstances in which this regulation applies, where two or
more requests for information to which section 1(1) of the 2000 Act would,
apart from the appropriate limit, to any extent apply, are made to a
public authority—

(a) by one person, or
(b) by different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting
in concert or in pursuance of a campaign,
the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to
be the total costs which may be taken into account by the authority, under
regulation 4, of complying with all of them.

(2) This regulation applies in circumstances in which–

(a) the two or more requests referred to in paragraph (1) relate, to any
extent, to the same or similar information, and
(b) those requests are received by the public authority within any period
of sixty consecutive working days.
(3) In this regulation, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday,
a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a day which is a bank holiday
under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971(1) in any part of the
United Kingdom.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/...

Part II of the Code of Practice issued under Section 45 of the Freedom of
Information Act states:

Limits to advice and assistance

12. If, following the provision of such assistance, the applicant still
fails to describe the information requested in a way which would enable
the authority to identify and locate it, the authority is not expected to
seek further clarification. The authority should disclose any information
relating to the application which has been successfully identified and
found for which it does not propose to claim an exemption. It should also
explain to the applicant why it cannot take the request any further and
provide details of the authority's complaints procedure and the
applicant's rights under section 50 of the Act (see "Complaints Procedure"
in section VI).

Advice and assistance and fees

14. Where an authority is not obliged to comply with a request for
information because, under section 12(1) and regulations made under
section 12, the cost of complying would exceed the "appropriate limit"
(i.e. cost threshold) the authority should consider providing an
indication of what, if any, information could be provided within the cost
ceiling. The authority should also consider advising the applicant that by
reforming or re-focusing their request, information may be able to be
supplied for a lower, or no, fee.’

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/gui...
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

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

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

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) only:

Follow this request

There is 1 person following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?