Met Inquiries 1998 in Kent re IRA Sugar Bomb Hoax Case of 1996 were they referred to Lawrence Inquiry

Richard Card made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

In 1998, thought to have been as a result of a report direct to Met Counter Terrorism by a Thanet District Cllr, a Met Counter Terror Unit detective made inquiry in Ramsgate.

He was thereafter aware that the inquiry he was making was one called for by Kent Police Authority in August 1997 that Kent Police had refused to conduct. At a time Kent Police was conducting Lawrence Inquiry.

There is also a context that a person subject of Kent Police Authority call for inquiry of August 1997 spoke to Panorama Tom MANGOLD in September 1997 about an alleged approach to him by Dr Wouter BASSON when the Dr was Head of Apartheid Regime Nuclear Biological Chemical warfare "Project Coast". This person still univestigated spoke again to MANGOLD in March 1998.

March 1998 was the time when REME Corps Secretariat, contacted by a complainant, raised Corps Service record checks into another man subject of Kent Police Authority call for inquiry (That Kent Police were refusing to conduct) BUT REME after the check independently called in MOD Police.

There is information that the man who spoke with MANGOLD re BASSON (and Dr David KELLY ?) was also working for a criminal associate of Clifford NORRIS. There is reason to suspect that this man was in contact with Det sgt John DAVIDSON.

The purpose of this FOI is to ask for disclosure. Did Met Counter Terrorist Unit report the compromise upon Kent Police to conduct Lawrence Inquiry to either the Met Lawrence Inquiry or to MacPHERSON ?

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Card

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015010000045

I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 01/01/2015.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

* Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

* In 1998, thought to have been as a result of a report direct to Met
Counter Terrorism by a Thanet District Cllr, a Met Counter Terror Unit
detective made inquiry in Ramsgate. He was thereafter  aware that the
inquiry he was making was one called for by Kent Police Authority in
August 1997 that Kent Police had refused to conduct. At a time Kent
Police was conducting Lawrence Inquiry. There is also a context that a
person subject of Kent Police Authority call for inquiry of August
1997 spoke to Panorama Tom MANGOLD in September 1997 about an alleged
approach to him by Dr Wouter BASSON when the Dr was Head of Apartheid
Regime Nuclear Biological Chemical warfare "Project Coast".   This
person still univestigated spoke again to MANGOLD in March 1998. March
1998 was the time when REME Corps Secretariat, contacted by a
complainant, raised Corps Service record checks into another man
subject of Kent Police Authority call for inquiry (That Kent Police
were refusing to conduct) BUT REME after the check independently
called in MOD Police.   There is information that the man who spoke
with MANGOLD re BASSON (and Dr David KELLY ?) was also working for a
criminal associate of Clifford NORRIS.  There is reason to suspect
that this man was in contact with Det sgt John DAVIDSON. The purpose
of this FOI is to ask for disclosure.  Did Met Counter Terrorist Unit
report the compromise upon Kent Police to conduct Lawrence Inquiry to
either the Met Lawrence Inquiry or to MacPHERSON ?  

Your request will now be allocated to the relevant unit within the MPS and
will be processed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).  

You will receive your response directly from the relevant unit within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act.  

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.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Yours sincerely

Peter Deja
Officer - Freedom of Information Triage Team

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

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

Complaint

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

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

FOI Complaint
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.ico.org.uk.  Alternatively, phone or
write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Card

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2015010000045
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 01/01/2015.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

·        Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), In 1998, thought to have
been as a result of a report direct to Met Counter Terrorism by a Thanet
District Cllr, a Met Counter Terror Unit detective made inquiry in
Ramsgate. He was thereafter  aware that the inquiry he was making was one
called for by Kent Police Authority in August 1997 that Kent Police had
refused to conduct. At a time Kent Police was conducting Lawrence Inquiry.
There is also a context that a person subject of Kent Police Authority
call for inquiry of August 1997 spoke to Panorama Tom MANGOLD in September
1997 about an alleged approach to him by Dr Wouter BASSON when the Dr was
Head of Apartheid Regime Nuclear Biological Chemical warfare "Project
Coast".   This person still univestigated spoke again to MANGOLD in March
1998. March 1998 was the time when REME Corps Secretariat, contacted by a
complainant, raised Corps Service record checks into another man subject
of Kent Police Authority call for inquiry (That Kent Police were refusing
to conduct) BUT REME after the check independently called in MOD Police.  
There is information that the man who spoke with MANGOLD re BASSON (and Dr
David KELLY ?) was also working for a criminal associate of Clifford
NORRIS.  There is reason to suspect that this man was in contact with Det
sgt John DAVIDSON. The purpose of this FOI is to ask for disclosure.  Did
Met Counter Terrorist Unit report the compromise upon Kent Police to
conduct Lawrence Inquiry to either the Met Lawrence Inquiry or to
MacPHERSON ?  

Thank you for the above information unfortunately I do not understand what
documentation you require from us. Please can you clarify what
documentation you are actually asking us for?

 

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days, subject to the information not being exempt or containing
a reference to a third party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
4th February 2015 I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this
request and will treat it as withdrawn.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Yours sincerely,

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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for seeking clarification>

Please disclose the records for Met Police Counter Terrorist officer making inquiries about backup generator sabotage in Ramsgate 1998. In connection with IRA Sugar Bomb hoax attack 1996 and Guys child patient death 1995.

Kent Police Authority had called for this inquiry in August 1997 but Kent Police, at a time they were conducting Lawrence Inquiry, refused to comply.

So I am asking for details or acknowledgement of the 1998 inquiry, And whether the facts then known to the Counter Terrorist officer were properly reported to Lawrence Inquiry senior Met Officers.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Card,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2015010000045
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 01/01/2015.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

In 1998, thought to have been as a result of a report direct to Met
Counter Terrorism by a Thanet District Cllr, a Met Counter Terror Unit
detective made inquiry in Ramsgate.

He was thereafter aware that the inquiry he was making was one called for
by Kent Police Authority in August 1997 that Kent Police had refused to
conduct. At a time Kent Police was conducting Lawrence Inquiry.

There is also a context that a person subject of Kent Police Authority
call for inquiry of August 1997 spoke to Panorama Tom MANGOLD in September
1997 about an alleged approach to him by Dr Wouter BASSON when the Dr was
Head of Apartheid Regime Nuclear Biological Chemical warfare "Project
Coast".   This person still univestigated spoke again to MANGOLD in March
1998.

March 1998 was the time when REME Corps Secretariat, contacted by a
complainant, raised Corps Service record checks into another man subject
of Kent Police Authority call for inquiry (That Kent Police were refusing
to conduct) BUT REME after the check independently called in MOD Police.  

There is information that the man who spoke with MANGOLD re BASSON (and Dr
David KELLY ?) was also working for a criminal associate of Clifford
NORRIS.  There is reason to suspect that this man was in contact with Det
sgt John DAVIDSON.

The purpose of this FOI is to ask for disclosure.  Did Met Counter
Terrorist Unit report the compromise upon Kent Police to conduct Lawrence
Inquiry to either the Met Lawrence Inquiry or to MacPHERSON ?  

Following our request for clarification you said.

Please disclose the records for Met Police Counter Terrorist officer
making inquiries about backup generator sabotage in Ramsgate 1998.  In
connection with IRA Sugar Bomb hoax attack 1996 and Guys child patient
death 1995.

Kent Police Authority had called for this inquiry in August 1997 but Kent
Police, at a time they were conducting Lawrence Inquiry, refused to
comply.  

So I am asking for details or acknowledgement of the 1998 inquiry,  and
whether the facts then known to the Counter Terrorist officer were
properly reported to Lawrence Inquiry senior Met Officers.

DECISION

Before I explain the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I
thought that it would be helpful to outline the parameters set out by the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for
information can be answered.

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, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether
it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that
information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.
The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is unsuitable for release. Importantly the
Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once
access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then
considered public information and must be communicated to any individual
should a request be received.
REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for
this particular request. The Metropolitan Police Service can neither
confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty
in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by
virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security
bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 30(3) - Criminal Investigations
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement

Section 23 - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with
security matters

(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, 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).

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

This is an absolute exemption and I am therefore not required to complete
a public interest test.

Section 24 - 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.

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

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test and provide evidence of harm.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not we hold the information, I have considered
the potential harm that could be caused by stating whether or not the MPS
has information or not.

National security is not defined in the Act. However in the case of the
Norman Baker MP v. IC (2007) the House of Lords referred to the decision
in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Rehman (2001):

(i) national security  means ‘the security of the United Kingdom and its
people’
(ii) the interests of national security are not limited to action by an
individual which can be said to be ‘targeted at’ the UK, its system of
government or its people
(iii) the protection of democracy and the legal and constitutional systems
of the state is a part of national security as well as military defence
(iv) ‘action against a foreign state may be capable indirectly of
affecting the security of the United Kingdom’
(v) ‘reciprocal co-operation between United Kingdom and other states in
combating international terrorism is capable of promoting the United
Kingdom’s national security’

Based on this definition national security encompasses a wide spectrum and
it is our duty to protect the people within the UK.  Public safety is of
paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into
account in deciding whether to disclose whether the information is or is
not held.

To confirm or deny whether we hold any information, would allow interested
parties to gain an upper hand and awareness of policing decisions used to
safeguard national security. As you may be aware, disclosure under FOIA is
a release to the public at large. Therefore, to confirm or deny that we
hold any information concerning any investigation or any subject relating
to an enquiry in 1988 could potentially be misused proving detrimental to
national security.

Confirming or denying whether any information is held would be of use to
those who seek to disrupt police activity as it would, by process of
elimination, enable individuals with the inclination to identify where
specific people have or have not been subject of police tactics or
investigations.

To confirm  whether any information is held in respect of one piece of
information  and then neither confirm nor deny whether another piece of
information is held, is likely to lead the public to deduce that
information is held where a NCND response is applied.  

Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used
to the advantage of terrorists, extremist or criminal organisations.
 Information that undermines the operational integrity of these
operational activities (whether information is or is not held in this
instance) will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact
on both national security and law enforcement.

To confirm or deny whether any information is held particularly concerning
a Counter Terrorism investigation would be extremely useful to those
involved in terrorist or criminal activity, as it would enable them to
ascertain what type of person or companies may or may not be monitored in
any way, enabling those with criminal intent to ascertain whether they may
or may not have evaded detection. It would also enable individuals to make
mosaic requests which can then provide an overall picture as to who or
what organisations/groups or people may be monitored in any way. This
would enable individuals to evade detection and compromise the ability of
the police to safeguard national security.

It remains our position that under FOIA the MPS will not confirm or deny
whether the MPS holds any information pertinent to your request. This
would be counter effective to the safeguarding of national security, and
increase the risk of crime if the MPS does not take a consistent approach
to requests regarding information held from investigations whether they be
monitoring of organisations or individuals. An increase in crime which
arises out of an inconsistent approach to the 'NCND' principle may lead to
an escalation of criminal activity that could have a detrimental effect on
national security and police intelligence.  

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24 - The information simply
relates to national security and to state whether or not the MPS does, or
does not have information would provide an indication either way.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 - By either confirming or
denying whether information is held would be likely to render security
measures less effective. This would lead to the compromise of ongoing or
future operations to protect the security or infrastructure of the UK and
increase the risk of harm to the public. To counter this, a full review of
security measures would be needed and additional costs would be incurred.

Balancing Test - Whilst there is a public interest in keeping everyone
informed about security measures, there is also a duty to ensure public
safety.  To confirm or deny whether information is held specific to your
request could be detrimental to any current or future operations.
 Therefore, after weighing up the competing interests I have determined
that the balancing test for disclosure is not made out.  

Section 30 - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities

(3) 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) or (2).

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

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S30 – A statement confirming
or denying whether or not information is held would enhance the
transparency and accountability of the force and its operations.  This
would provide an insight into the police service and enable the public to
have better understanding of effectiveness of the police.

If we confirmed or denied that any information was held by the Counter
Terrorism Command would allow the public to make informed decisions about
how police gather intelligence. This would greatly assist in the quality
and accuracy of public debate, which would otherwise likely be steeped in
rumour and speculation.  

Factors against confirmation or denial for S30 – To confirm or deny
whether or not there was an investigation would disclose Police practices,
thereby exposing operational activity.  Information relating to
investigative tactics and protocol will rarely be disclosed under the Act
and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring
disclosure.  

To confirm or deny that this level of policing activity has or has not
occurred in any specific area would enable those engaged in criminal or
terrorist activity to identify the focus of policing activity and any
tactics that may or may not be deployed.

To confirm or deny the existence of such information would also reveal
policing tactics regarding who was of interest to the police generally.
 This could be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service
and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

By confirming or denying whether an investigation was carried out at that
time would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. The MPS would not
wish to reveal who, what and when intelligence is recorded as this would
clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This
would impact on police resources and more crime and terrorist incidents
would be committed, placing individuals at risk.
Balancing Test - Confirming or denying that any information is held, would
reassure the public that any investigation is being or has been properly
conducted and would allow for a greater understanding of how information
is gathered. Confirming or denying that any information relevant to the
request is held, would however, enable criminals/terrorists to identify
the focus of policing activity and evade prosecution.  Therefore, by
neither confirming or denying that information is held protects any
ongoing investigation that the MPS may now be conducting.  After weighing
up the competing interests, I believe that the balance test favours
neither confirmation or denial.

Section 31 - Law Enforcement

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

(a) the prevention or detection of crime,

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,

(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).

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

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test and provide evidence of harm.

Evidence of Harm

To confirm or deny whether information is held relevant to this request
could be detrimental to law enforcement.

The effect of acknowledging whether or not information is or is not held
would likely be useful to those who might wish to disrupt Police tactics.

To confirm or deny that the requested information is held or provide
details relating to what may or may not be held may be to the detriment of
providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty
of care to all members of the public, and this would also impact upon any
current  investigation.

Public Interest Test

Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S31 - Confirming or denying
whether the Counter Terrorism Command hold any information into an
investigation in 1988 that may or may not have taken place  would allow
the public to see where public funds have been spent and allow the Police
service to appear more open and transparent.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S31 - By confirming or denying
whether a specific incident was investigated by and of interest to the
Counter Terrorism Command  would mean that law enforcement tactics would
be compromised which would hinder the prevention and detection of crime.
 Security arrangements and tactics are re-used and have been monitored by
criminal groups, fixated individuals and terrorists. These security
arrangements and tactics would need to be reviewed which would require
more resources and would add to the cost to the public purse.

Any acknowledgement would have the effect of releasing sensitive
operational information into the public domain to the effect that we
either were, or were not conducting operations, which would enable those
with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map strategies used by
the MPS.

Balancing Test - After weighing up the competing interests I have
determined that the disclosure of the requested information, if held,
would not be in the public interest as by confirming or denying that
information is held would compromise law enforcement and could be to the
detriment of providing an efficient policing service, resulting in costs
to the public purse.

Overall Balance test

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police
service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so
would undermine National Security or law enforcement.  Whilst there is a
public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing
assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively
engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals there is a
very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police
investigations and operations in the highly sensitive area of extremism,
crime prevention, public disorder and terrorism prevention.  

There have previously been requests for information that the Counter
Terrorism Command may or may not hold on individuals or investigations
where the applicant has been unhappy with the reply and pursued a decision
from the Information Commissioner.  On these occasions the ICO have upheld
the approach taken based upon the use of the Section 23(5) exemption.  In
FS50258193 the Information Commissioner states” The Commissioner is
satisfied that there will be very few instances where the information held
by Special Branch is not also held by a Section 23(3) body, even if it was
not directly or indirectly supplied by them, as the nature of the work of
special branches involves very close working with security bodies and
regular sharing of information and intelligence.”

Similarly in FS50263467 the Information Commissioner further states “that
there may be instances where Special Branch information would not relate
to a Section 23(3) body, although these would be few and far between.”
 The ICO has also accepted in the same case that “all documents compiled
and held by Special Branch will on the balance of probabilities relate to,
or have been supplied by, a body specified in Section 23(3).  Therefore,
any information falling within the scope of this request which might be
held by the public authority would be exempt under section 23.  To
disclose whether such information is or is not held would itself be a
disclosure of exempt information.”
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is
appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional
circumstances. Areas of interest to the police are sensitive to the extent
that they reveal local intelligence.  To confirm or deny the existence of
the requested information, if held, would allow interested parties to gain
an upper hand and awareness of policing decisions used during
investigations. As previously stated, disclosure under FOIA is a release
to the public at large. Therefore, to confirm or deny the existence of any
information that you have requested, into the public domain could
potentially be misused proving detrimental to ongoing and future
investigations.  To disclose what information, if any, is held could be of
use to those who seek to disrupt any police investigation as it would by a
process of elimination, enable them to identify whether specific
individuals or groups have or have not been subject of a Counter Terrorism
Command investigation. This would lead to an increase of harm to either
the investigation itself or the subject of the investigation.

Whilst to confirm or deny that any information is held, would reassure the
public that an investigation had been properly conducted and allow for a
greater understanding of how information has been gathered, this could
undermine the role and effectiveness of any future investigations

To confirm or deny information is held would harm law enforcement
functions of the Counter Terrorism Command by disclosing operational
techniques used over a significant number of years.  This would compromise
the future law enforcement capabilities of the police, which would be to
the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in
providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that
confirmation or denial of any information being held concerning whether
the Counter Terrorism Command carried out an investigation on this subject
or any subject relating to the disclosure would not be in the public
interest. To confirm or deny that information is held regarding any
incident or individual the Counter Terrorism Command might or might not
have investigated could be detrimental to any investigations that may be
being conducted at the present or in the future.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any
information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

You have submitted previous freedom of information requests to the MPS
where you have also made reference to and inferred a connection between
Kent Police Authority’s request for an inquiry and report in 1997 on
paramilitary and terrorist issues in Kent, Clifford Norris, the Deal
Barracks bombing, UDA bases in Kent, the David Norris murder trial and
Stephen Lawrence Investigation. May I remind you of the previous response
to your requests.

Your continuous inference to these specific issues the MPS has deemed that
the nature of these requests show an unreasonable persistence by you to
link and reopen a variety of issues which have already been subject to
public scrutiny, where it has been deemed necessary.

By the nature of these requests it may be deemed that you have further
 abused your rights of access to information by using this legislation as
a means to vent your anger/frustration at the decision not to hold an
inquiry where it is believed that the outcome would clearly show a
connection with some or all of these events.  The request made has also
been determined to be futile as whilst it is recognised that you have a
specific interest in these various subjects, proving a connection between
these is the sole purpose of the individual.  Where evidence has been
found to justify any inquiry, this has conducted or been subject to some
form of independent investigation.

As stated, the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to grant
access to information that enables the public to scrutinise the decisions
and actions taken by public authorities in their official capacity, and to
increase the accountability and transparency of those authorities. While
it could be argued that any disclosure of any information by a public
authority demonstrates transparency, and a case could invariably be made
that public scrutiny of disclosed information directly equates to the
accountability of public authorities, it is difficult to relate these
arguments to these requests, particularly as the requests do not relate to
the workings of the public authority itself, nor does it concern the
provision of services by or the operational functions of the public
authority.

I would therefore like to remind you that if you continue to submit
requests  on the same or similar theme the MPS will not be obliged to
respond and will apply the relevant exemption Section 14(1) of the
 Freedom of Information Act.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Yours sincerely,

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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

Complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone:  01625 545 745

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for your anticipated reply.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I have to add that in 1998 the Met Counter Terrorist officer came to Ramsgate to make inquiries of me. He had my name and address and his question to me was "Why would sabotage of backup generators be suspected to be the work of IRA ?"

When he asked that question I became suspicious that he was not a counter terrorist officer at all. He was taking notes into a red Woolworths style notebook.

The reason for suspecting IRA is based on the appendices of the Scarman Tribunal Report 1972 and is public information.

The specifics of suspicion were the 41 lines of inquiry, including crime complaints, in the warnings given to and ignored by Kent Police prior to the 22.9.89 terrorist bombing murders at Deal Barracks.

Kent Police Authority was sufficiently persuaded that they called for inquiry and report in August 1997.

It is an unassailable fact that Kent Police conducted Lawrence Inquiry while refusing an HM Coroner request to re-examine a related suicide verdict and while refusing to comply with their own police authority call for inquiry and report. It is also a fact that REME in 1998 called in MOD Police on their own volition.

In 1998 there were 3 related developments of national importance. The Good Friday Agreement and the serious nuclear incidents due to back up power failures at Dounreay and at Hunterston B.

In 2005, during election campaign, a backup generator blew up at Maidstone Hospital causing a 3 day evacuation of A and E at a time of presumably heightened security alert. Tony Blair as a result ordered that copies of my reports of concern be sent to Northern Ireland Office (who already had a 2003 report of concern from Gen De Chasterlain)

I forget what year a similar incident backup generator explosion caught BBC studio alight and caused evacuation which took public broadcasting from that studio out of action. I think it is entirely reasonable of me to expect Met Police to register that incident even if only on its risk registers.

The 1998 counter terrorist unit inquiry did not raise a security flag to deny the alleged saboteur access to Scotland Yard or London hospitals or nuclear power plant or electrically dependent sites like Porton Down. Clearly the lessons of Plum Island not resonating with your protection of realm duties.

Would you now forward this FOI to Sir Bernard HOGAN HOWE and ask if he wishes to be listed in related Judicial Review application as an interested party ? Since he chose not to respond to his copy of a report already screened for me by terrorism expert Lord Carlile QC I assumed Sir Bernard had pre-elected to opt out of defending the Met history in court.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. Card

Freedom of Information Review reference: 2015010002046

This letter is in connection with your further correspondence dated 29th
January 2015 to the Metropolitan Police service (MPS) in response to your
request for information dealt with under reference: 2015010000045.  
 
Your Further Correspondence - 29/1/15

I have to add that in 1998 the Met Counter Terrorist officer came to
Ramsgate to make inquiries of me.  He had my name and address and his
question to me was "Why would sabotage of backup generators be suspected
to be the work of IRA ?"

When he asked that question I became suspicious that he was not a counter
terrorist officer at all.  He was taking notes into a red Woolworths style
notebook.  

The reason for suspecting IRA is based on the appendices of the Scarman
Tribunal Report 1972 and is public information.

The specifics of suspicion were the 41 lines of inquiry, including crime
complaints, in the warnings given to and ignored by Kent Police prior to
the 22.9.89 terrorist bombing murders at Deal Barracks.  

Kent Police Authority was sufficiently persuaded that they called for
inquiry and report in August 1997.

It is an unassailable fact that Kent Police conducted Lawrence Inquiry
while refusing an HM Coroner request to re-examine a related suicide
verdict and while refusing to comply with their own police authority call
for inquiry and report.  It is also a fact that REME in 1998 called in MOD
Police on their own volition.

In 1998 there were 3 related developments of national importance.  The
Good Friday Agreement and the serious nuclear incidents due to back up
power failures at Dounreay and at Hunterston B.

In 2005, during election campaign, a backup generator blew up at Maidstone
Hospital causing a 3 day evacuation of A and E at a time of presumably
heightened security alert.  Tony Blair as a result ordered that copies of
my reports of concern be sent to Northern Ireland Office (who already had
a 2003 report of concern from Gen De Chasterlain)

I forget what year a similar incident backup generator explosion caught
BBC studio alight and caused evacuation which took public broadcasting
from that studio out of action.  I think it is entirely reasonable of me
to expect Met Police to register that incident even if only on its risk
registers.

The 1998 counter terrorist unit inquiry did not raise a security flag to
deny the alleged saboteur access to Scotland Yard or London hospitals or
nuclear power plant or electrically dependent sites like Porton Down.
 Clearly the lessons of Plum Island not resonating with your protection of
realm duties.

Would you now forward this FOI to Sir Bernard HOGAN HOWE and ask if he
wishes to be listed in related Judicial Review application as an
interested party ?  Since he chose not to respond to his copy of a report
already screened for me by terrorism expert Lord Carlile QC I assumed Sir
Bernard had pre-elected to opt out of defending the Met history in court.
   

REVIEW DECISION

The MPS has completed its internal review and has deemed your latest
requests for information as vexatious by virtue of section 14(1) Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (FoIA). Further reference to the Act can be found
by way of this link   http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

Please note, the MPS considers it unreasonable to issue any further
notices to you should you continue to make any further requests around the
themes mentioned in this notice, namely where you make reference to and
infer a connection between Kent Police Authority¡¦s request for an inquiry
and report in 1997 on paramilitary and terrorist issues in Kent, Clifford
Norris, the Deal Barracks bombing, UDA bases in Kent, the David Norris
murder trial and Stephen Lawrence Investigation.  In addition, where you
make reference for an inquiry to the Home Secretary, which shows an
unreasonable persistence by you to link and reopen a variety of issues
which have already been subject to
public scrutiny, where it has been deemed necessary.

Reason for decision

On the 27th October 2014 under reference 2014100000172 and in response to
your previous requests around similar themes, you were served with a
notice under section 17(6) FoIA, as shown in Annex C below under ¡¥Legal
Annex¡¦.

Section 17(6) Notice provides:

(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.

(6)        Subsection (5) does not apply where¡X

(a) the public authority is relying on a claim that section 14 applies,

(b) the authority has given the applicant a notice, in relation to a
previous request for information, stating that it is relying on such a
claim, and

(c) it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to expect the
authority to serve a further notice under subsection (5) in relation to
the current request.

Therefore section 17(6) of the Act states there is no need to issue a
refusal notice if:

¡P        The authority has already given the same person a refusal notice
for a previous vexatious or repeated request; and

¡P        It would be unreasonable to issue another one

The Information Commissioner¡¦s Office (ICO) advises ¡¥Public authorities
do not have to comply with vexatious requests. There is no requirement to
carry out a public interest test or to confirm or deny whether the
requested information is held.¡¦ The ICO further advises ¡¥¡Kwe appreciate
that it may not be appropriate to provide a full explanation in every
case. An example might be where the evidence of the requester¡¦s past
behaviour suggests that a detailed response would only serve to encourage
follow up requests.¡¦ This is evidenced by your correspondence since being
advised your requests were deemed vexatious, as follows:

Your response to internal review 2014100000172  - 27th October 2014 at
15:42

Thank you for your response.  Since asking for this review I have received
a reply from Home Secretary as a result of which I have written to
National Crime Agency which is conducting inquiry for Home Secretary.

I have asked NCA to call in a number of case files.

The persistence and vexatiousness in the history is your refusals to
answer.  And your interpretation of law seems irrational in that once you
have refused to answer a number of times you think of further attempts to
break your silence as "Vexatious".

It seems to me perfectly reasonable to ask you if the 1992 arrests case
referred to a then recent paramilitary collusion case in the same area.
 Whether your UDA inquiry proceeded to proceeds of crime.  Whether the
stock loss inquiry at nearby Sericol resulted from the UDA arrests case.  

Since the UDA arrests case flowed directly into the Stephen Lawrence
murder inquiry 1993 and now, arising from Mark Ellison QC Review,  there
is inquiry  by NCA I would expect you to see the present public interest
in the FOIs.

Your further correspondence within one hour at 16:37

Terms of reference Mark Ellison QC Review

1. Our terms of reference
1. Is there evidence providing reasonable grounds for suspecting that any
officer associated
with the initial investigation of the murder of Stephen Lawrence acted
corruptly?
2. Are there any further lines of investigation connected to the issue of
possible corrupt
activity by any officer associated with the initial investigation of the
murder of Stephen
Lawrence?
3. Was the Macpherson Inquiry provided with all relevant material
connected to the issue
of possible corrupt activity by any officer associated with the initial
investigation of the
murder of Stephen Lawrence? If not, what impact might that have had on the
Inquiry?
4. What was the role of undercover policing in the Lawrence case, who
ordered it and why?
Was information on the involvement of undercover police withheld from the
Macpherson
Inquiry, and if it had been made available what impact might that have had
on the Inquiry?
5. What was the extent of intelligence or surveillance activity ordered or
carried out by
police forces nationally in respect of the Macpherson Inquiry, Stephen
Lawrence¡¦s family
or any others connected with the Inquiry or the family?
6. What was the extent, purpose and authorisation for any surveillance of
Duwayne Brooks
and his solicitor?

Met Police please note that Questions 1 to 5 extend to the subject of my
FOIs.  

The question for Sir Bernard Hogan Howe (electing silence) Home Secretary
and NCA is how many of the questions, in the terms of reference and in
Mark Ellison QC review, were intrinsic to the 1997 Kent Police Authority
call for inquiry and report ?  Kent Police conducted Lawrence Inquiry
whilst refusing to make the inquiries and report to their own Police
Authority.

I am afraid this opens up the very distinct probability that Kent Police
and Home Secretary Jack Straw conspired/colluded together against
MacPherson Inquiry.

Given that your boss Sir Bernard Hogan_Howe has already elected silence
then your adherence to silence (Refusal to answer FOIs) has a context.  

By far the most nationally important aspect is sabotage and unreliability
of backup generators.  Police chose nil action and completely cocked up a
sudden death inquiry (Guys 1995). It is impossible for police to argue
that they took the best decisions in public interest.

The fact is that Michael FULLER Chief constable of Kent 2009 was
challenged with a High Court statement of truth.  Sign that there is no
prima facie case of sabotage of backup generators that could threaten
national survival.  And come the test FULLER refused to sign. (Perhaps he
found signing "Vexatious" ?)  This is far more important as a national
interest concern than the Lawrence case and individual undercover
officers' versions of their orders.

Conclusion

The review is satisfied that you have already been provided with a refusal
notice for a previous vexatious request under section 17(6) and considers
it unreasonable to issue any further notices should you make any further
correspondence or requests  where you make reference to and infer a
connection between Kent Police Authority¡¦s request for an inquiry and
report in 1997 on paramilitary and terrorist issues in Kent, Clifford
Norris, the Deal Barracks bombing, UDA bases in Kent, the David Norris
murder trial and Stephen Lawrence Investigation. In addition, where you
make reference for an inquiry to the Home Secretary - which shows an
unreasonable persistence by you to link and reopen a variety of issues
which have already been subject to public scrutiny, where it has been
deemed necessary.

Please note, the MPS considers it unreasonable to issue any further notice
to you should you continue to make any further requests around the themes
mentioned above.

If you are dissatisfied with this FoIA internal review decision, you have
the right to appeal the decision by contacting the Information
Commissioner (www.ico.org.uk ) for a decision on whether the request for
information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the
FoIA.

Yours sincerely

M Lyng

Freedom of Information Act Complaints.

Annex A  - Original request  (reference: 2015010000045) - 1/1/15

In 1998, thought to have been as a result of a report direct to Met
Counter Terrorism by a Thanet District Cllr, a Met Counter Terror Unit
detective made inquiry in Ramsgate.

He was thereafter aware that the inquiry he was making was one called for
by Kent Police Authority in August 1997 that Kent Police had refused to
conduct. At a time Kent Police was conducting Lawrence Inquiry.

There is also a context that a person subject of Kent Police Authority
call for inquiry of August 1997 spoke to Panorama Tom MANGOLD in September
1997 about an alleged approach to him by Dr Wouter BASSON when the Dr was
Head of Apartheid Regime Nuclear Biological Chemical warfare "Project
Coast".   This person still univestigated spoke again to MANGOLD in March
1998.

March 1998 was the time when REME Corps Secretariat, contacted by a
complainant, raised Corps Service record checks into another man subject
of Kent Police Authority call for inquiry (That Kent Police were refusing
to conduct) BUT REME after the check independently called in MOD Police.  

There is information that the man who spoke with MANGOLD re BASSON (and Dr
David KELLY ?) was also working for a criminal associate of Clifford
NORRIS.  There is reason to suspect that this man was in contact with Det
sgt John DAVIDSON.

The purpose of this FOI is to ask for disclosure.  Did Met Counter
Terrorist Unit report the compromise upon Kent Police to conduct Lawrence
Inquiry to either the Met Lawrence Inquiry or to MacPHERSON ?  

Following our request for clarification you said.

Please disclose the records for Met Police Counter Terrorist officer
making inquiries about backup generator sabotage in Ramsgate 1998.  In
connection with IRA Sugar Bomb hoax attack 1996 and Guys child patient
death 1995.

Kent Police Authority had called for this inquiry in August 1997 but Kent
Police, at a time they were conducting Lawrence Inquiry, refused to
comply.  

So I am asking for details or acknowledgement of the 1998 inquiry,  and
whether the facts then known to the Counter Terrorist officer were
properly reported to Lawrence Inquiry senior Met Officers.

Annex B - MPS response summary to case 2015010000045

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for
this particular request. The Metropolitan Police Service can neither
confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty
in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by
virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security
bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 30(3) - Criminal Investigations
Section 31(3) - Law Enforcement

Annex C - Previous Internal Review to case 2014090000199  (Deemed
vexatious) - 27/10/14

Freedom of Information request for review reference: 2014100000172

I write in connection with your correspondence dated  2nd October 2014
requesting that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response
to your request for information (ref: 2014090000199).   Please find below
a response to your complaint.

Original Request
 
We have previously established by FOI that you have no record of whether
Cyclohexanone theft inquiries at Sericol Broadstairs 92/93 were raised as
a consequence of the above 1992 arrests of UDA at Margate  by Det sgt Alex
LEIGHTON. (later founder Mayfayre Associates)

Would you now please disclose whether drugs were seized as evidence, if so
the value thereof and whether, in any event, there was a proceeds of crime
recovery action ?

Would you also disclose whether or not the Met Police action (leading to
the David Norris murder trial 1993) cross referred to an existing Kent
Police case of paramilitary collusion.  That would be the 1987 arrests of
Kent based TA men, unlawful missions to Ireland, allegedly forged UDR ID
cards and documentation.  And whether any consideration was given by Met
to the 1990 EU Resolution on member states to dismantle unauthorised
military groups.  That would be military training groups who operated
without Crown authority.  And the security warnings that had arisen on
Deal Royal Marines Barracks as a consequence of the local arrests for
paramilitary collusion activity (the later 22.9.89 Deal barracks bombing
case).  

My interpretation of Secretary of State Defence reply is that the
International Bodyguards Assn, created at Deal RM Barracks between 76 and
83, had no Crown authority to conduct its live fire military training.
 Theresa May has been asked to ensure that her Judge led inquiry answer if
a Director of International Bodyguards Assn worked for Mayfayre or any
associated company mentioned in Leveson Inquiry or subsequent
parliamentary process.  I hope that sets out the context to the request
for disclosure.  

Request for Review

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'Value of seized evidence and details
of proceeds of crime action Met arrests of UDA 1992 Margate Kent'.

You have judged this FOI by the context I provided.  I set out a context
for your information and because this is a public site.

The fact remains that you have never previously been sent an FOI seeking
the information subject of this request.

Much of the context information is subject of common law and statutory
duties to report to a constable.  Your decision is irrational in that it
implies a criticism of the law itself as vexatious.

The information I seek would be reported in a submission to Theresa May's
Judge Led Inquiry.  Are you saying that intent is something you find
vexatious ?  That a Judge be presented with facts previously denied to
another Judicial Inquiry (MacPherson) ?

It is quite simple.  Was there a proceeds of crime inquiry consequent on
the 1992 arrests of UDA ?  What was the nature and value of seized
property ?

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

Your further correspondence - 3rd October 2014

Because this site is a permanent public record I wish to add this note.

Our Realm gives us, by and large, a right of silence.  The duty to report
knowledge of Crime (Misprision of Felony) was "Repealed" by a Labour Govt
in 1967.  They substituted a Statute that made failure to report knowledge
of crime for reward the only offence.

However duties to report knowledge do exist at Common Law (Misprision of
Treason) and at Statute Law (Proceeds of Crime and Terrorism Acts).

The whole history, that forms the context to this FOI, is about people who
did the right thing and who obeyed common law and statute law duties to
report knowledge to police.   What characterises the whole history is the
reluctance of police to answer what did they do with the knowledge
reported to them ?

We hear PCCs bleat on about wanting a more accountable police.  But yet
police find being asked to account "Vexatious".  Police misinterpret FOI
requests, that are separate but complementary, as "Repetitious".  The
underpinning truth is Police do not wish to answer.

Who has made the calls for answers re this history ?

Gen De Chasterlain Head of Arms Decommissioners Good Friday Agreement
Kent Police Authority
HM Coroner
Crown Court Judge
Home Office
Members of the public who did the right thing and reported in accordance
with law.
Mark Ellison QC Review
Levenson Inquiry

The fact is, IF Kent Police had complied with their Police Authority call
for inquiry in 1997, many of the questions now identified by the Mark
Ellison QC Review would have been addressed and properly accounted at the
time to the MacPherson Inquiry.

The question for me is this.  Does this refusal by Met Police (which I
don't doubt will be sustained by "Review") merit an appeal to Information
Commissioner ?  Or is it sufficient to cite yet another police refusal to
answer along with all the records cannot be found responses?

I am at a loss to understand what goes through police heads.  A number of
us made crime complaints and reported knowledge amounting to 41 lines of
inquiry concerning Deal Royal Marines Barracks security.  This was not a
conspiracy theory.  The concerns could pass the standard police test of
"Any offences revealed" and each offence, subject of crime complaint,
intrinsically meritted inquiry.  Yet Police nil actioned the lot.

On 22.9.89 11 Royal Marines were killed at the barracks by a terrorist
bomb.  The security warnings and crime complaints were kept out of the
Admiralty Board of Inquiry report.  Kept out of the scope of the bombing
inquiry.  

What do police expect ?  That the complainants should never question them
about their criminal negligence and Treason ?

As it happens at the time of the Deal RM Barracks bombing in 89 I was
contracting in a top secret torpedo factory in Wales.  I was aware that
the local Special Branch suspected saboteurs at the factory and that they
suspected rogue  elements of the "Gladio" network.

In 1991, after a chat with a retired RN Intelligence Commander, I sent
Kent Police a letter asking them to review the warnings situation given
that Gladio had been exposed and the EU had passed a resolution on member
states to dismantle it.   And the Police silence began.  

Now years later we find that police were less than honest about Deal
Barracks.  It was a base for "Private contractor" paramilitary trainers
who called themselves "Combat Training Team Royal Marines".Such a group in
UK was unlawful under the Unlawful Drilling Act 1819.   These private
contractors had police on the team !  They had carried out joint exercises
in Belgium.  In 1989 the SBS were joint exercising with Gladio units in
Belgium.

And of course we find the tentacles of the "Private contractors" extended
into private inquiry companies (Levenson, Daniel Morgan murder, Mayfayre
Associates ?) and that there is an unanswered question whether they
provided bodyguard work to Met Regional Crime Squad officers including one
Lawrence case officer.

The only thing repetitious in this history of FOIs is Police silence.

REVIEW DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to uphold the original MPS decision to deem the request a
Vexatious Request by virtue of section 14(1) Freedom of Information Act
2000 (FOIA).

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

Reason for decision

The review takes note of your comment ¡¥Much of the context information is
subject of common law and statutory duties to report to a constable.  Your
decision is irrational in that it implies a criticism of the law itself as
vexatious¡K¡¦ It is therefore important to point out that it is the
request that is deemed vexatious and not the individual who submitted it.

The Freedom of Information Act creates a statutory right of access to
information held by public authorities. Section 1(1) of the FoIA provides
that 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.

This right of access to information is not without exception and is
subject to a number of exemptions and other provisions under the Act,
including section 14(1) which provides:

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

In ICO Decision Notice FS50493150
http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/...
the ICO clarifies ¡¥The term ¡§vexatious¡¨ is not defined in the FOIA. The
Upper Tribunal recently considered the issue of vexatious requests in the
case of the Information Commissioner v Devon CC & Dransfield. The Tribunal
commented that vexatious could be defined as the ¡§manifestly unjustified,
inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure.¡¨ The Tribunal¡¦s
definition clearly establishes that the concepts of proportionality and
justification are relevant to any consideration of whether a request is
vexatious.¡¦

After a careful examination of your request the review has decided to deem
this request vexatious by virtue of Section 14(1) FoIA governing vexatious
requests.  There is no public interest test.

Considerations for making the request vexatious

The Information Commissioner¡¦s Office (ICO) has provided guidance on
dealing with vexatious requests and states ¡¥The Freedom of Information
Act was designed to give individuals a greater right of access to official
information with the intention of making public bodies more transparent
and accountable. Whilst most people exercise this right responsibly, a few
may misuse or abuse the Act by submitting requests which are intended to
be annoying or disruptive or which have a disproportionate impact on a
public authority.¡¦ The ICO further recognises that ¡¥dealing with
unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way
of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests.
Furthermore, these requests can also damage the reputation of the
legislation itself.¡¦ Further reference to the ICO guidance can be found
by way of this link:
http://www.ico.org.uk/news/blog/2013/~/m...

ICO guidance reminds public authorities that section 14(1) is designed to
protect public authorities by allowing them to refuse any requests which
have the potential to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of
disruption, irritation or distress.  The ICO also states the emphasis on
protecting public authorities¡¦ resources from unreasonable requests was
acknowledged by the Upper Tribunal when it defined the purpose of section
14 as ¡¥section 14¡Kis concerned with the nature of the request and has
the effect of disapplying the citizen¡¦s right under section 1(1) ¡Kthe
purpose of section 14¡Kmust be to protect the resources (in the broadest
sense of that word) of the public authority from being squandered on
disproportionate use of FOIA¡K¡¦

To assist public authorities the ICO guidance has provided a number of
indicators as typical key features of a vexatious request, these are:

h n n n n n n n nAbusive or aggressive language
h n n n n n n n nBurden on the authority
h n n n n n n n nPersonal grudges
h n n n n n n n nUnreasonable persistence
h n n n n n n n nUnfounded accusations
h n n n n n n n nIntransigence
h n n n n n n n nFrequent or overlapping requests
h n n n n n n n nDeliberate intention to cause annoyance
h n n n n n n n nScattergun approach
h n n n n n n n nDisproportionate effort
h n n n n n n n nNo obvious intent to obtain information
h n n n n n n n nFutile requests
h n n n n n n n nFrivolous requests

Assessing purpose and value

Although in general the FoIA is considered ¡¥applicant blind¡¦, there are
certain circumstances when the identity of the applicant needs to be
considered.  One of these circumstances is when determining whether a
request is ¡¥vexatious¡¦. The ICO advises ¡¥the Act is generally
considered to be applicant blind, and public authorities cannot insist on
knowing why an applicant wants information before dealing with a request.
However, this doesn¡¦t mean that an authority can¡¦t take into account the
wider context in which the request is made and any evidence the applicant
is willing to volunteer about the purpose behind their request. The
authority should therefore consider any comments the applicant might have
made about the purpose behind their request, and any wider value or public
interest in making the requested information publicly available.¡¦
Therefore, in order to assess purpose and value, the review must consider
the history to a request, and to do that, the identity of the requester
must be known.

Having considered your request and stated purpose, by way of comments
placed on a public website, I have determined that the following factors
are relevant in deeming your request vexatious:

¡P        Frequent or overlapping requests
¡P        Futile requests
¡P        No Obvious intent to obtain information
¡P        Unfounded accusations
¡P        Unreasonable persistence

Considering whether the purpose and value justifies the impact on the
public authority.

The ICO advises that serious purpose and value will often be the strongest
argument in favour of the requester when a public authority is
deliberating whether to refuse a request under section 14(1) and states
¡¥The key question to consider is whether the purpose and value of the
request provides sufficient grounds to justify the distress, disruption or
irritation that would be incurred by complying with that request. This
should be judged as objectively as possible¡K.¡¦

The ICO further clarifies this to mean ¡¥In other words, would a
reasonable person think that the purpose and value are enough to justify
the impact on the authority.¡¦ From the history of your requests we can
deduce from this the purpose of your requests, which we imagine to be your
attempts to reopen a variety of issues which have already been subject to
public scrutiny where this has been deemed necessary. The review now has
to consider whether the purpose and value justifies the impact on the
public authority and whether this serves the wider public interest. To
this end the review will look at each of the factors in turn below.

Frequent or overlapping requests

The ICO guidance on this point states: ¡¦The requester submits frequent
correspondence about the same issue or sends in new requests before the
public authority has had an opportunity to address their earlier
enquiries.¡¦

You have submitted frequent correspondence and overlapping requests before
the public authority has had an opportunity to deal with the initial
correspondence. This is evidenced in the history of your requests below:

On the 29th January 2014 at 10:27 you submitted a detailed request
(reference 2014020000133) to the MPS. This request included a link to the
public website ¡¥whatdotheyknow¡¦ leading to a FoIA request to another
public authority from the previous day.  The request to the MPS begins
with a comment ¡¥As you will see there were Commons questions raised in
1972¡K¡¦  Only 1 hour later at 11:24 and before the MPS had any
opportunity to respond to the first request, you submitted further
detailed correspondence.

On the 21st March 2014 in less than an hour (between 07:05 and 07:57) you
submitted no less than three separate detailed FoIA requests
(2014030002050, 2014030002052 and 2014030002057) to the MPS.

On the 25th March 2014, within a space of just 3 working days, and at the
same time that the MPS were seeking clarification from you, concerning
your earlier requests, you submitted a further FoIA request
(2014030002382) to the MPS.

On the 4th June 2014 at 21:01 you submitted a detailed request
(2014060000558) to the MPS.  Within 17 minutes at 21:18 you had submitted
further correspondence to the MPS. On the 6th June 2014 the MPS advised
you that these two requests would be aggregated, and it was at this point
that you submitted further detailed correspondence.

The review therefore finds this indicator to be relevant in this case.

Futile requests

The ICO guidance on this point states: ¡¥The issue at hand individually
affects the requester and has already been conclusively resolved by the
authority or subjected to some form of independent investigation.¡¦

In this regard the review takes note of the observations made in the
initial MPS response namely ¡¥The request made has also been determined to
be futile as whilst it is recognised that the requestor has a specific
interest in these various subjects, proving a connection between these is
the sole purpose of the individual.  Where evidence has been found to
justify any inquiry, this has conducted or been subject to some form of
independent investigation.¡¦

This indicator is further evidenced in the history of your requests, in
that since January 2014 you have submitted frequent correspondence to the
MPS claiming a personal interest in the issues at hand.  For example:

On the 29th January 2014 in regards to request 2014020000133 and your
further correspondence you state ¡¥As you will appreciate my position is
that if I was allowed access to High Court I think the McGill suicide
verdict would quash (IMO a turkey shoot). In my affidavit with Attorney
General I request, in the event of a quash, the High Court appoint itself
HM Coroner for the new inquest procedure. In the public interest. What I
have not been able to pursue is anecdotal information¡K¡¦ and later in the
same piece of correspondence ¡¥I would like to see a new inquest under the
Article 2 procedure. In fact the first argument I know of to incorporate
Article 2 ECHR into inquest law was by me in the McGILL case. That rights
to life cannot be protected by the state unless there exists concurrently
the certainty of proper lawful sudden death inquiry.¡¦

On the 4th February 2014, in reference to request 2014020000133, after
being advised by the MPS that it was unable to ascertain what information
you were seeking, you made the following comments ¡¥¡KI have sent a
submission by email to Dame Janet Smith Inquiry. I will provide a printed
copy with the exhibit report.¡¦ And later after being advised how to
submit a request for information ¡¥¡KI was giving you the courtesy
information that I will send copies of the evidence file to Operation
Yewtree. This is the submission of evidence and information NOT another
FOI request.¡¦

On the 21st March 2014, in reference to request 2014030002052, you state
¡¥After the Misadventure Verdict further inquiry was made by me supported
by Jonathan Aitken MP¡Kthat Health and Safety Executive engineers argue
the technical detail with me¡K ¡¦

On the 24th March, in your clarification for the same case as above, you
state ¡¥If it helps Lord Carlyle QC last year concluded that my 300 page
report of interlocking concerns is NOT conspiracy theory¡K¡¦

On the 4th June 2014, in your clarification to request 2014060000558, you
state ¡¥I anticipate that there will be one more FOI to Met to enable me
to write a submission to Theresa May¡¦s Judge led Inquiry.¡¦

The review therefore finds this indicator to be relevant in this case.

No Obvious intent to obtain information

The ICO guidance on this point states: ¡¥The requester is abusing their
rights of access to information by using the legislation as a means to
vent their anger at a particular decision, or to harass and annoy the
authority, for example, by requesting information which the authority
knows them to possess already.¡¦

The review considers that you are using the FoIA legislation as a means to
vent your anger by way of a public website concerning inquiry decisions in
the past, which can be evidenced in the context of your correspondence
where you state in your request for review ¡¥I set out a context for your
information and because this is a public site¡K¡¦ and in your further
correspondence ¡¥Because this is a permanent public record I wish to add
this note¡K¡¦

When the requests and comments are viewed in context the review is
satisfied that they contain a mixture of views and opinion around topics
with no obvious intent to obtain information, this fact was pointed out on
a number of occasions by the MPS when providing you with assistance in
structuring your requests. One such example is in relation to your first
request (2014020000133) where you state:

¡¥https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/y...

As you will see there were Commons questions raised in 1972

(1) Shadow Minister Barbara Castle MP called for inquiry under
Section 37 National Assistance Act 1948 into the concerns of the
late Matron McGill about poor care standards and "The distance kept
between the care and admin sides" of the Leonard Cheshire and Sue
Ryder charities.

You may be familiar with the name Sir Eric BERTHOUD for his work
with SOE, Anglo Iranian Oil and Foreign Office and his part, with
Ipswich Labour MP Richard RAPIER STOKES in the overthrow of
Mossadeq to create a job vacancy for a Shah in Iran.

His role in answering questions from the McGILL family solicitor in
1972 (Eric was Head of Sue Ryder support group) is less well known
(But Dominic Grieve knows). Eric in conjunction with an honorary
solicitor for Sue Ryder explained (some time after the secret
inquest and unlawful cremation) that the Sue Ryder Home had been
circulated for inquest witnesses on the morning of the death
itself.

I don't know if there was ever a warrant search of the Sue Ryder
Home seeking the missing crystal ball. I say this because inquest
testimony begins with the discovery of the body at 2 PM. By which
time, according to Eric's post inquest account, the inquest witness
list had already been drawn up and lunch consumed (presumably)
ready for the body discovery stage to take place in the afternoon
!!

Dominic Grieve thinks that a High Court judge would be so
unimpressed by such evidence that said Judge should be spared it
altogether and it should all be kept secret under Govt Law Officer
custodianship of public interest (Section 13 Coroners Act 1988)

(2) Eric Berthoud you may know was something to do with a 1970s
charity Colchester Cttee for Refugee Relief. I see that refugee
relief is now a remit of the Airey Neave Trust. That would be Airey
Neave of MI6 who was co founding trustee of Sue Ryder Homes with
Harry Sporborg ex SOE.

You can be assured that diligent examination of the case has
occurred at govt level. For example when Sir John Stradling Thomas
MP first wrote to ministers putting together the Suffolk McGILL
Decd case with the Welsh regional crime squad case, he wrote to
Attorney General Patrick Mayhew and Police Minister Earl Ferrers.

Luckily they would not have had to do too much reading up. As
Patrick Mayhew mmmm President Airey Neave Trust and Ferrers
ancestral seat Staunton Harold became better known as Staunton
Harold Leonard Cheshire Home.

By the time Roger Evans MP a barrister made the first Section 13
attempt to quash the 1972 McGILL suicide verdict circa 1993/94 the
Attorney Genral had become Nicholas Lyell. Thank goodness an old
boy of Stowe School just like mmmm Leonard Cheshire.

(3) You may find it rather odd that Dominic Grieve has indicated,
on this FOI site, that Suffolk Police could be forgiven for failing
to look at the Stefania Bronk autopsy report 1972 to see whether or
not ileac crest bruising is recorded.

You may have the expertise (serious now) to know if Pes Recurvatus
can occur other than congenitally. This featured in McGILL Decd
1972 but a New Zealand medical records check of the 1990s reported
to the McGILL family that Mary McGILL did not have pes recurvatus.

The inquest witness to whom identification was attributed then
clarified that he had never viewed the face of the body, had not in
fact seen it immersed in the lake and had not taken part in its
recovery from the lake. He in fact appears to have been a volunteer
kitchen help who was an reportedly an outpatient and occasional in
patient of Fulbourne mental hospital.

So the situation seems to be if the pes recurvatis was congenital
the body was not Mary McGILL. Or if the body was Mary McGILL she
had acquired unaccounted injury to the costal margin which was
unbruised. Bruising was ileac crest and shin tramlime.

Here we have two govt interpretations of law. Lord Chanvellow
specialist Coroner section agreed with me. The cremation was of an
unidentified body and hence the jurisdiction is with Home Secretary
to order an inquest.

The AG can apply to quash the suicide verdict on an unidentified
body. But he cannot declare an inquest safe when he knows there was
no proof of identification.

As you know Dominic was a Modern History man so he must have been
studying the history of the trades union movement or something
whilst the law dept was covering things like mmm Law and the Office
of Constable and the Coronation Oath and Magna Carta and Crown
authority for the administration of justice.

(4) So the matter of the Special Branch exercise discovered by
Welsh RCS. There you may find it fruitful to have a word with Tony
Burden former Chief constable of Gwent. Did he consent in the 90s
for MI5 or Scotland Yard specialist nazi war criminal inquiries to
trawl Gwent held RCS records ? And was this linked into the later
inquiry 1994 when a bizarre burglary stole all Newport births
marriages deaths records. Oh and what happened about the document
burglary 1992 at the home of one of the retired RCS detectives ?

Tony should help you out with that.

(5) Maybe also you could chat with Tim Passmore whose occupation is
PCC Suffolk and to his PA. The PA job title used to be called
"Chief constable" if that helps.

(6) You can see where this is going. Charity that was de facto
unlawful police no go area maybe for political reasons but there is
no such thing as a mild case of police no go area. So please do not
contain the Wheatfields inquiry to just Savile. there is a context
and a history of suppressed inquiry into death with suspected
abuse.

(7) Look at the Ixworth Beeches child deaths. Also refused care
inquiry by Sir Keith Joseph in 1972. You could start with Hackney
Social Services and ask why retrospective inquiry into abuse by
residential social workers gave the Director of Cambridge Social
Services terms of reference which excluded him from investigating
the six year history of child deaths at The Beeches Ixworth.¡¦

Continuing on from this initial piece of correspondence, a second item of
correspondence was sent soon after to the MPS requesting: ¡¥As you will
appreciate my position is that if I was allowed accessto High Court I
think the McGILL suicide verdict would quash (IMO a turkey shoot)

In my affidavit with Attorney General I request, in the event of a
quash, the High Court appoint itself HM Coroner for the new inquest
procedure. In the public interest.

What I have not been able to pursue is anecdotal information:

(1) Attributed by an anonymous Christs College Cambridge spokesman
to Bishop of Durham or past Bishop. That inquiry might be meritted
to look at a charity called Katherine Low Settlement to see if it
was a route used by volunteers and careworkers common to the Sue
Ryder Home and the Beeches Ixworth.

(2) Security vetting flagging 1970s. Suffolk man flagging up on
posituve vetting of Special Forces. "Undischarged bankrupt asset of
the IRA acquiring information of use to the Soviet". In his remit,
if he had one, was an interest in Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire
activity Cavendish

(3) A womens' stillbirth or infant death self help group who were
said to have rented a cottage at Cavendish watching the activity of
Sue Ryder. This group, if it existed, was not absorbed I think into
the well known SANDS charity. There was a suggestion they were from
the Bristol area.

I feel I have met not just one but ALL the tests for unsafety of an
inquest (McGILL Decd)

Insufficiency of Inquiry
Fraud
Rejection of Evidence
Irregularity of Procedure

I would like to see a new inquest under the Article 2 procedure. In
fact the first argument I know of to incorporate Article 2 ECHR
into inquest law was by me in the McGILL case. That rights to life
cannot be protected by the state unless there exists concurrently
the certainty of proper lawful sudden death inquiry.

I decided to give you some of the scuttlebutt to make of what you
might.¡¦

The MPS responded that after careful consideration, it was unable to
ascertain what information you had requested, as defined by section 8 (2)
(c) FoIA. In response to this email you then commented ¡¥I will post you a
copy of the sworn exhibit report in Matron McGILL Decd. By recorded
delivery. Which includes copies of the original inquest testimony. I have
sent a submission by email to Dame Janet Smith Inquiry. I
will provide a printed copy with the exhibit report.¡¦ The Information
manager dealing with request then advised you ¡¥If you wish to submit an
FOI request you must ask for recorded information that the MPS might
retain. If you do not ask for recorded information your request will not
be valid under the Act. An example of this might be "please provide me
with the minutes to the most recent management board meeting" or "please
provide me with the statistics for the number of crimes on a specific
borough¡¦

In return you replied ¡¥Thank you. This FOI has achieved its purpose. I
was giving you the courtesy information that I will send copies of the
evidence file to Operation Yewtree. That is the submission of evidence and
information NOT another FOI request. Thank you for your time and response
to this request. This FOI is now satisfactorily concluded.¡¦

The review therefore finds this indicator to be relevant in this case.

Unfounded accusations

The ICO guidance on this point states: ¡¥The request makes completely
unsubstantiated accusations against the public authority or specific
employees.¡¦

The review considers your request to contain a number of unfounded
accusations and opinion around a variety of topics, including:

On the 29th January 2014 in regards to request 2014020000133 and your
further correspondence you state ¡¥I feel I have met not just one but ALL
the tests for unsafety of an inquest (McGILL Decd) Insufficiency of
Inquiry
Fraud  Rejection of Evidence Irregularity of Procedure¡K¡¦

On the 21st March 2014 in regards to request 2014030002057 you state
¡¥Kent Police Authority called for inquiry and report in 1997 re
history of Middle Easterners training with Uzis at 6th Thanet Gun
range. Kent Police failed to comply with this call for inquiry at the time
they were deployed conducting Stephen Lawrence inquiry. As you may know if
Kent Police had complied with the call for inquiry it would have been
inevitable that they carry out investigation at Croydon which would have
included relationships between criminals and Regional Crime Squad now so
pertinent to the Mark Ellison QC review and to the forthcoming Judge led
inquiry into corruption at the time of Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.¡¦

On the 28th March 2014 in regards to request 2014030002382 and your
further correspondence you state ¡¥The Kent Police refusal to comply with
their police authority calls for inquiry and Puttnam's information
recently publicised by Mark Ellison QC. If Kent Police had complied with
their police authority call then it was inevitable they would have
investigated RCS in which Det sgt John Davidson served, private
investigation companies headed by ex senior detectives (such as those
featured in the unsolved Daniel Morgan murder. And the facts of such
proper inquiry would have been reported to MacPherson Inquiry.¡¦

On the 4th June 2014 in regards to request 2014060000558 you state ¡¥Given
the spectacular collapse of the David Norris murder trial perhaps the
Lawrence inquiry acted as a very effective distraction from the serious
public interest questions about the extent of state involvement with
loyalist paramilitaries?¡¦

On the 4th June 2014 in regards to request 2014060000558 you additionally
comment ¡¥It was Kent Police chosen to conduct the Lawrence Inquiry 1997
and then they refused to comply with their own police authority call
for inquiry into matters terrorist and paramilitary in Kent.¡¦

On the 1st October 2014 in regards to request 2014090000199 you
additionally comment ¡¥The fact is that in 1997 Kent Police Authority
called for inquiry and report August 1997. A time Kent Police were calling
the met "The B Team" as Kent conducted the Lawrence Inquiry. But if Kent
Police had complied with their own police authority call for inquiry then
many of the questions now asked by Mark Ellison QC review would have been
investigated and accounted to MacPherson Inquiry AT THE TIME.¡¦

The review therefore finds this indicator to be relevant in this case.

Unreasonable persistence

The ICO guidance on this point states: ¡¥the requester is attempting to
reopen an issue which has already been comprehensively addressed by the
public authority, or otherwise subjected to some form of independent
scrutiny¡¦.

In this regard the review takes note of the initial MPS response which
states ¡¥You have submitted previous freedom of information requests to
the MPS
where you have also made reference to and inferred a connection between
Kent Police Authority¡¦s request for an inquiry and report in 1997 on
paramilitary and terrorist issues in Kent, Clifford Norris, the Deal
Barracks bombing, UDA bases in Kent, the David Norris murder trial and
Stephen Lawrence Investigation.  In addition, you have also made reference
to your request for an inquiry to the Home Secretary, Teresa May.  By your
continuous inference to these specific issues the MPS has deemed that the
nature of these requests show an unreasonable persistence by the requestor
to link and reopen a variety of issues which have already been subject to
public scrutiny, where it has been deemed necessary.¡¦

This is further evidence by reference to the titles attached to each of
your requests on a public website, as follows:

29 January 2014 - Your request reference: 2014020000133 is entitled:
Operation Yew Tree Wheatfields

21 March 2014 - Your Request Reference: 2014030002052 is entitled: Child
Patient Death Guys 1995 in post op ICU when rogue operation of hospital
backup generator system cut both mains and backup power from the hospital

21st March 2014 - Your Request Reference: 2014030002050 is entitled:
Forensic Evidence 3rd Party Access and Exhibits custodian private
prosecution Stephen Lawrence

21 March 2014 - Your Request Reference: 2014030002057 is entitled: Post
9.11 Inquiry Yetgoch and Kent Police Authority Call for Inquiry 1997

25th March 2014 - Your Request Reference: 2014030002382 is entitled:
Information from Sudden Death Inquiry Child Patient Death 1995 Guys
Hospital

4th June 2014 - Your Request reference: 2014060000558 is entitled: Further
Inquiries arising from arrests of UDA Margate Kent 1992

2 September 2014 - Your request Reference No 2014090000199 is entitled:
Value of seized evidence and details of proceeds of crime action Met
arrests of UDA 1992 Margate Kent

The review therefore finds this indicator to be relevant in this case.

Conclusion

The purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to grant access to
information that enables the public to scrutinise the decisions and
actions taken by public authorities and to increase the accountability and
transparency of those authorities.  Whilst it could be argued that any
disclosure of any information by a public authority demonstrates
transparency, and a case could invariably be made that public scrutiny of
disclosed information directly equates to the accountability of public
authorities, it is difficult to relate these arguments to this request
where you have attempted to reopen a variety of issues, as can be seen at
Appendix A, which have already been subject to public inquiry and scrutiny
where this has been deemed necessary.  It is for this reason that the
review considers the purpose and value does not justify the impact on the
public authority in this instance and is satisfied that this request is
deemed vexatious. This will also apply to any future requests made under
the FoIA surrounding similar topics.

Information Tribunal EA/2011/0222  
http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DB...
 confirm that ¡¥Abuse of the right to information under s.1 of FOIA is the
most dangerous enemy of the continuing exercise of that right for
legitimate purposes.  It damages FOIA and the vital rights that it enacted
in the public perception. In our view, the ICO and the Tribunal should
have no hesitation in upholding public authorities which invoke s.14(1) in
answer to grossly excessive or ill-intentioned requests and should not
feel bound to do so only where a sufficient number of tests on a checklist
are satisfied.¡¦  

If you remain dissatisfied with the MPS 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.  Details of how to do so can be found below.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
MPS Freedom of Information Act Complaints

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(5)&(6) FoIA provides:

(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.

(6)        Subsection (5) does not apply where¡X

(a) the public authority is relying on a claim that section 14 applies,

(b) the authority has given the applicant a notice, in relation to a
previous request for information, stating that it is relying on such a
claim, and

(c) it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to expect the
authority to serve a further notice under subsection (5) in relation to
the current request.

Section 14(1) FoIA provides:

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

Appendix A

History of Requests and MPS responses

[1] 29 January 2014 - Your request reference: 2014020000133
Entitled: Operation Yew Tree Wheatfields

Please disclose the reasons, if any, your inquiry at Wheatfields Sue Ryder
is failing to liaise or seek evidence from the AttorneyGeneral and Suffolk
Police.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/y...

As you will see there were Commons questions raised in 1972

(1) Shadow Minister Barbara Castle MP called for inquiry under
Section 37 National Assistance Act 1948 into the concerns of the
late Matron McGill about poor care standards and "The distance kept
between the care and admin sides" of the Leonard Cheshire and Sue
Ryder charities.

You may be familiar with the name Sir Eric BERTHOUD for his work
with SOE, Anglo Iranian Oil and Foreign Office and his part, with
Ipswich Labour MP Richard RAPIER STOKES in the overthrow of
Mossadeq to create a job vacancy for a Shah in Iran.

His role in answering questions from the McGILL family solicitor in 1972
(Eric was Head of Sue Ryder support group) is less well known (But Dominic
Grieve knows). Eric in conjunction with an honorary solicitor for Sue
Ryder explained (some time after the secret inquest and unlawful
cremation) that the Sue Ryder Home had been circulated for inquest
witnesses on the morning of the death itself.

I don't know if there was ever a warrant search of the Sue Ryder Home
seeking the missing crystal ball. I say this because inquest testimony
begins with the discovery of the body at 2 PM. By which time, according to
Eric's post inquest account, the inquest witness list had already been
drawn up and lunch consumed (presumably) ready for the body discovery
stage to take place in the afternoon !!

Dominic Grieve thinks that a High Court judge would be so
unimpressed by such evidence that said Judge should be spared it
altogether and it should all be kept secret under Govt Law Officer
custodianship of public interest (Section 13 Coroners Act 1988)

(2) Eric Berthoud you may know was something to do with a 1970s charity
Colchester Cttee for Refugee Relief. I see that refugee relief is now a
remit of the Airey Neave Trust. That would be Airey Neave of MI6 who was
co founding trustee of Sue Ryder Homes with Harry Sporborg ex SOE.

You can be assured that diligent examination of the case has
occurred at govt level. For example when Sir John Stradling Thomas
MP first wrote to ministers putting together the Suffolk McGILL
Decd case with the Welsh regional crime squad case, he wrote to
Attorney General Patrick Mayhew and Police Minister Earl Ferrers.

Luckily they would not have had to do too much reading up. As
Patrick Mayhew mmmm President Airey Neave Trust and Ferrers
ancestral seat Staunton Harold became better known as Staunton
Harold Leonard Cheshire Home.

By the time Roger Evans MP a barrister made the first Section 13
attempt to quash the 1972 McGILL suicide verdict circa 1993/94 the
Attorney Genral had become Nicholas Lyell. Thank goodness an old
boy of Stowe School just like mmmm Leonard Cheshire.

(3) You may find it rather odd that Dominic Grieve has indicated,
on this FOI site, that Suffolk Police could be forgiven for failing
to look at the Stefania Bronk autopsy report 1972 to see whether or
not ileac crest bruising is recorded.

You may have the expertise (serious now) to know if Pes Recurvatus
can occur other than congenitally. This featured in McGILL Decd
1972 but a New Zealand medical records check of the 1990s reported
to the McGILL family that Mary McGILL did not have pes recurvatus.

The inquest witness to whom identification was attributed then
clarified that he had never viewed the face of the body, had not in
fact seen it immersed in the lake and had not taken part in its
recovery from the lake. He in fact appears to have been a volunteer
kitchen help who was an reportedly an outpatient and occasional in
patient of Fulbourne mental hospital.

So the situation seems to be if the pes recurvatis was congenital
the body was not Mary McGILL. Or if the body was Mary McGILL she
had acquired unaccounted injury to the costal margin which was
unbruised. Bruising was ileac crest and shin tramlime.

Here we have two govt interpretations of law. Lord Chanvellow
specialist Coroner section agreed with me. The cremation was of an
unidentified body and hence the jurisdiction is with Home Secretary
to order an inquest.

The AG can apply to quash the suicide verdict on an unidentified
body. But he cannot declare an inquest safe when he knows there was
no proof of identification.

As you know Dominic was a Modern History man so he must have been
studying the history of the trades union movement or something
whilst the law dept was covering things like mmm Law and the Office
of Constable and the Coronation Oath and Magna Carta and Crown
authority for the administration of justice.

(4) So the matter of the Special Branch exercise discovered by
Welsh RCS. There you may find it fruitful to have a word with Tony
Burden former Chief constable of Gwent. Did he consent in the 90s
for MI5 or Scotland Yard specialist nazi war criminal inquiries to
trawl Gwent held RCS records ? And was this linked into the later
inquiry 1994 when a bizarre burglary stole all Newport births
marriages deaths records. Oh and what happened about the document
burglary 1992 at the home of one of the retired RCS detectives ?

Tony should help you out with that.

(5) Maybe also you could chat with Tim Passmore whose occupation is PCC
Suffolk and to his PA. The PA job title used to be called "Chief
constable" if that helps.

(6) You can see where this is going. Charity that was de facto
unlawful police no go area maybe for political reasons but there is
no such thing as a mild case of police no go area. So please do not
contain the Wheatfields inquiry to just Savile. there is a context
and a history of suppressed inquiry into death with suspected
abuse.

(7) Look at the Ixworth Beeches child deaths. Also refused care
inquiry by Sir Keith Joseph in 1972. You could start with Hackney
Social Services and ask why retrospective inquiry into abuse by
residential social workers gave the Director of Cambridge Social
Services terms of reference which excluded him from investigating
the six year history of child deaths at The Beeches Ixworth.

29 January - Your further correspondence

As you will appreciate my position is that if I was allowed access to High
Court I think the McGILL suicide verdict would quash (IMO a turkey shoot)

In my affidavit with Attorney General I request, in the event of a
quash, the High Court appoint itself HM Coroner for the new inquest
procedure. In the public interest.

What I have not been able to pursue is anecdotal information:
(1) Attributed by an anonymous Christs College Cambridge spokesman
to Bishop of Durham or past Bishop. That inquiry might be meritted
to look at a charity called Katherine Low Settlement to see if it
was a route used by volunteers and careworkers common to the Sue
Ryder Home and the Beeches Ixworth.

(2) Security vetting flagging 1970s. Suffolk man flagging up on
posituve vetting of Special Forces. "Undischarged bankrupt asset of
the IRA acquiring information of use to the Soviet". In his remit,
if he had one, was an interest in Sue Ryder and Leonard Cheshire
activity Cavendish

(3) A womens' stillbirth or infant death self help group who were
said to have rented a cottage at Cavendish watching the activity of
Sue Ryder. This group, if it existed, was not absorbed I think into
the well known SANDS charity. There was a suggestion they were from
the Bristol area.

I feel I have met not just one but ALL the tests for unsafety of an
inquest (McGILL Decd)

Insufficiency of Inquiry
Fraud
Rejection of Evidence
Irregularity of Procedure

I would like to see a new inquest under the Article 2 procedure. In fact
the first argument I know of to incorporate Article 2 ECHR into inquest
law was by me in the McGILL case. That rights to life cannot be protected
by the state unless there exists concurrently the certainty of proper
lawful sudden death inquiry.

I decided to give you some of the scuttlebutt to make of what you might.

4th February - MPS response summary

I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested
under the provisions of Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000
(the Act).

Section 8 of the Act provides:

(1)         In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a
reference to such a request which-

(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence,
and
(c) describes the information requested.

(2)        For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be
treated as made in writing where the text of the request-

(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable
of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I
have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am
unable to ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by
Section 8 (2)(c).

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your
application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason
you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek
assistance from any other available source.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets
the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested
within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt.

4 February - Your comment

Thank you for your response.

I will post you a copy of the sworn exhibit report in Matron McGILL Decd.
By recorded delivery. Which includes copies of the original inquest
testimony.

I have sent a submission by email to Dame Janet Smith Inquiry. I will
provide a printed copy with the exhibit report.

4th February - MPS reply

If you wish to submit an FOI request you must ask for recorded information
that the MPS might retain. If you do not ask for recorded information your
request will not be valid under the Act.

An example of this might be "please provide me with the minutes to the
most recent management board meeting" or "please provide me with the
statistics for the number of crimes on a specific borough."

4th February - Your further comment

Thank you. This FOI has achieved its purpose. I was giving you the
courtesy information that I will send copies of the evidence file to
Operation Yewtree. That is the submission of evidence and information NOT
another FOI request.

Thank you for your time and response to this request.
This FOI is now satisfactorily concluded.

[2] 21 March - Your Request Reference: 2014030002052
Entitled: Child Patient Death Guys 1995 in post op ICU when rogue
operation of hospital backup generator system cut both mains and backup
power from the hospital

Please disclose the case reviews at the time and the review necessitated
by Kent Police Authority call for inquiry and report 1997 whilst Kent
Police were conducting independent inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case.

Your records should show that an advance affidavit was sent to the
Southwark HM Coroner. This detailed an inquiry at Petbow Generators
of 1987 into a rogue 3 fault sequence on Guys hospital incoming
mains monitor and backup power system.

The witness was not called.

After the Misadventure Verdict further inquiry was made by me
supported by Jonathan Aitken MP. Mr Aitken insisted that Health and
Safety Executive engineers argue the technical detail with me and
that he be notified of the result. The result was HSE lost. Their
senior man reported that since failures of hospital backup gennies
are not designated as reportable incidents under Health at Safety
at Work Act the HSE was under no duty to investigate.

It then turned out that their head of health interest group
involved in the Guys investigation was not an engineer ! he had an
A level in physics he thought might be helpful !

It then emerged that the basis for rejectingh the 1987 evidence was
that HSE and Met Police managed to record the equipment
manufacturer as "MVA model 1.5". And on this basis ruled out Petbow
as the manufacturer who should have been subjected to Coroners
Inquiry.

MVA stands for MEGA VOLT AMPS the power rating !!!!

In fact the 1995 incident was an exact three fault sequential
re-run of the 1987 incident.

If you take yer FBI reliability expectations (To indicate sabotage) you
will find that the chances of an innocent recurrence are one in 3 million
million.

Which must be very comforting to Kent Police Authority by the way because
it means that in calling for a saboteur inquiry they have a 3 million
million to one chance of being right !

Please disclose your case reviews including the review necessitated
post 9.11 (Collapse of Tower 7 New York Fire Dept report re backup
generators rogue operation fuel transfer systems)

It is possible Boris Johnson knows a bit more as he put a report to
Met Police Authority at the time The Chief constable of Kent was on
the short list to be Met Commissioner.

24 March - your comment after MPS acknowledgement

Thank you please cross refer this case to my reply in the Yetgoch
FOI in which you also cannot identify records.

24 March - MPS seek reference

Please can you supply the MPS reference number for your Yetgoch FOI

24 March - Your clarification

No: 2014030002057

I rather think you may not have records which is the point. This
was AGAIN part of inquiries called for by Kent Police Authority
whilst Kent Police were conducting Lawrence Inquiry.

If it helps Lord Carlyle QC last year concluded that my 300 page
report of interlocking concerns is NOT conspiracy theory. I wonder
if you have no review case in this sudden death whether you would
draw it to the attention of your Special Branch or anti Terrorist
Branch and if they call for it I can send a copy of the report
which went to Terrorism Law reviewers last year.

Could you check if the Nuclear Constabulary inquiry called for
about 2002 by Scottish energy Minister Ian Grey re Dounreay and
Hunterston B 1998 referred into Met re the Guys incident under question ?

You will appreciate that Kent Police Authority called for inquiry
1997 re Guys (and other sites like Leeds Gen Infirmary, Credit
Suisse and London HQ BP) that Kent Police would not comply and by
March 99 when Jack Straw suppressed inquiry that the Dounreay and
Hunterston B serious nuclear incidents (due to backup power
failures) had occurred in the interim ?

24 March - your further correspondence

It occurs to me that a Met officer called VENESS sent me a letter perhaps
if you check his correspondence record ?

25 March - MPS response summary

It has been decided to refuse access to this information under the
provisions of Section 8(1)(C) of the Freedom of Information Act (the Act).

Section 8 of the Act provides:
(1) In this Act any reference to a "request for information" is a
reference to such a request which-
(a) is in writing,
(b) states the name of the applicant and an address for correspondence,
and
(c) describes the information requested.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as
made in writing where the text of the request-
(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.

It is not clear from your request what recorded information you require.
You have asked for 'case reviews at the time'. You have referred to the
Stephen Lawrence Investigation, a health and safety matter at Guys
Hospital and 911 case reviews.

You were asked to clarify your requests on 24/03/2014 and confirm which of
your 3 requests you were referring to. You were also advised that if your
request referred to information held by Kent Police that you would have to
direct your Freedom of Information Act request to them. You responded by
stating ' Thank you for your efforts here. I am pretty much satisfied that
Met was kept in the dark by Home Secretary and Kent Police especially
during Lawrence Inquiry'

Your request is not a valid request under the Freedom of Information Act
(the Act).
 
It is unclear what specific recorded information which may be held by the
MPS that you require under the Act.

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your
application in accordance with the above requirements.

I attach an excerpt from the Information Commissioner's website which may
assist you in composing any future Freedom of Information requests.

What can I request under the Freedom of Information Act?
You have the right to request any information held by public authorities.
The Act allows access to recorded information, such as emails, meeting
minutes, research or reports, held by public authorities in England,
Northern Ireland and Wales and some authorities located in Scotland.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets
the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested
within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt.

[3]  21st March - Your Request Reference: 2014030002050
Entitled: Forensic Evidence 3rd Party Access and Exhibits custodian
private prosecution Stephen Lawrence

Please disclose the records of access and handling to evidence
exhibits particularly the coat of Gary DOBSON.

For the private prosecution who was responsible for the access,
forensic testing and court custodianship of exhibits?

Was the Court evidence custodian private prosecuting barrister Michael
Mansfield ?

I have read the Facebook Page calling for justice for Gary Dobson.
In fact, like me, there are people concerned about the removal of
the right of double jeopardy.

So there are people like me who are concerned at the history of how
a conviction was secured in this case.

I was amazed to learn that the police seizure of evidence, such as
Gary DOBSONS coat crucial to the prosecution case, was by uniformed
officers who did not collect it forensically into sealed bag. They
appear to have simply taken it from a cupboard and carried it out.
So on the face of it the initial appearance of sealing exhibits
took place in the proximity of other forensic evidence at the
police station ? From the start that evidence appears unsafe.

Please also disclose what the Kent Police inquiry opinion on this
was ? As you know they were cross case compromised re gun crime in
Kent and were refusing calls for inquiry and report from their own
police authority at the time they conducted inquiry into Met
handling of the Lawrence case.

24th March - your comment to MPS acknowledgement

Please cross refer this case to the reply I gave re the Yetgoch FOI.

24th March - MPS seek clarification

Please can you provide the corresponding MPS reference number

24th March - your clarification

No: 2014030002057

Thank you for your efforts here. I am pretty much satisfied that Met was
kept in the dark by Home Secretary and Kent Police especially during
Lawrence Inquiry

27th March - MPS response summary

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within Specialist Crime and Operations.

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the
parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, (the Act),
within which a request for information can be answered.

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

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

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set
out by the Act and can confirm that some of the requested information is
held by the MPS.

Having identified and considered the relevant information, I am afraid
that I am not required by statute to release all the information
requested. This response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of
the Act.

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

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act I have decided to
refuse access to the information you have requested as some of the
information you have requested is easily accessible by other means.

You have asked for information regarding prosecutions made relating to the
murder of Stephen Lawrence. In particular, you have asked for information
relating to the access handling of evidence exhibits and information
regarding Kent Police.

Information relevant to your request has been aired during court
proceedings and widely reported in the media.  Please find below a MPS
press release relating to your request for information:

http://content.met.police.uk/News/Two-fo...

In addition, the MPS can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other
information relating to this request by virtue of the following
exemptions:

Section 30(3) Investigations
Section 31(3) Law Enforcement

Should it be held, constituents of this information would attract Section
30 and other constituents Section 31 of the Act.

It should not be surmised that should any other information be held by the
MPS that we would be applying Sections 30 and 31 to the same pieces of
information.

Section 30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

Section 30 is a class based qualified exemption and consideration of the
public interest must be given as to whether neither confirming nor denying
that any other information exists is the appropriate response.

Public Interest Test - Section 30 Investigations.

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS's
ability to complete any future criminal investigations.

Section 30 Factors against maintaining a neither confirm nor deny stance

The murder of Stephen Lawrence was and continues to be a very high profile
matter.

Over the years, there has been a large amount of information placed into
the public domain through media articles.

The public therefore have a genuine interest in being informed as to the
nature and circumstances of this matter.

Disclosure of any other information, if it exists, would enlighten members
of the public as to the action taken by the MPS during investigations.

This may go some way to promoting awareness and accountability where
expenditure of public funds is concerned and would reinforce the MPS's
commitment to openness and transparency.

Section 30 Factors favouring maintaining a neither confirm nor deny stance

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except
through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so
potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide
statements in relation to investigations.

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict
secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not
become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

During the course of any police investigation, enquires are made to secure
evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case and are
based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience of the
officer(s) in charge of the investigation.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and
the public release of the modus operandi employed during the course of
this investigation could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct
further, similar investigations and have a detrimental effect on court
proceedings.

Care must be taken to not compromise any strand of an investigation or
future investigation or cause any undue harm to the individuals involved.

The police have a duty to protect both witnesses and suspects of criminal
investigations and the integrity of tried and tested investigative
techniques used now and for future criminal investigations.

By confirming or denying whether the requested information is held would
hinder the prevention or detection of crime. The MPS would not wish to
reveal tactical information and intelligence sources as this would clearly
undermine the law enforcement and investigative process.  

Balance Test -  Section 30 Investigations
By confirming or not that any other information is held would in this case
disclose what facts may or may not exist in relation to investigations
made regarding the murder of Stephen Lawrence. If doing so would harm an
investigation or any future similar investigations, denying justice to the
victims or jeopardising such an investigation from reaching a satisfactory
conclusion then it would not be in the public interest to do so.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any other
information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Section 31 Law enforcement
This is a qualified exemption for which the MPS is required to articulate
the harm that would be caused in confirming or denying that the
information is held as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Section 31 - Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not the MPS confirm hold any other information I
have considered the potential harm that could be caused by such a
disclosure.
Section 31 - Public Interest Test
The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS's
ability to complete any future criminal investigations.
The release of such information would reveal policing tactics.  This could
be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a
failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
Information disclosed under the Act is considered to be a release to the
world as once the information is published, the public authority, in this
case the MPS has no control over what use is made of that information.
 Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant it could be of use to
those who seek to disrupt any police investigation processes.  This could
be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service.

Section 31 Factors favouring confirmation or denial  
By confirming or denying whether any other information is held would
enable the public to have a better understanding of the type of police
processes employed by the MPS in carrying out their law enforcement role.

Better public awareness may reduce crime or lead to more information from
the public about individuals who they believe may be linked to specific
crimes

Section 31 Factors against confirmation or denial
By confirming or denying that any other information exists, law
enforcement would be compromised which would hinder the prevention and
detection of crime. More crime would be committed and individuals would be
placed at risk. This would result in further risks to the public and
consequently require the use of more MPS resources.

Disclosure of information, if it exists would provide valuable
intelligence which would be useful to criminals in identifying methods of
legitimate law enforcement  techniques which may or may not be used by the
MPS

Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational
information into the public domain which would enable those with the time,
capacity and inclination to try and map strategies used by the MPS.

Additionally, MPS resources and its ability to operate effectively and
efficiently would directly be affected as this information can be
manipulated by those with criminal intent to operate in those areas.

Balance Test - Section 31 Law Enforcement
The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would
undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS and would furthermore
impact on the trust of witnesses in making statements in the future.

Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental affect reducing the
quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromise future
investigations. Therefore, I consider that considerations favouring
non-disclosure of the requested information, if it exists, far outweighs
the considerations favouring disclosure.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any
information that would meet your request exists or does not exist.

Your correspondence - 27th March 2014

Thank you for your help. I have marked this request as partially
successful. Yesterday I sent a report to Sir Bernard Hogan Howe and
copied the covering letter to Theresa May MP.

I am waiting for an FOI response from Cabinet Office but have informed
them that report to Sir Bernard has already been sent.

[4]  21 March -  Your Request Reference: 2014030002057
Entitled: Post 9.11 Inquiry Yetgoch and Kent Police Authority Call for
Inquiry 1997
 
Please disclose the record of inquiry into Kent Gun Ranges in the
inquiry and prosecution of Frank Etim.

Kent Police Authority called for inquiry and report in 1997 re
history of Middle Easterners training with Uzis at 6th Thanet Gun
range.

Kent Police failed to comply with this call for inquiry at the time
they were deployed conducting Stephen Lawrence inquiry.

As you may know if Kent Police had complied with the call for
inquiry it would have been inevitable that they carry out
investigation at Croydon which would have included relationships
between criminals and Regional Crime Squad now so pertinent to the
Mark Ellison QC review and to the forthcoming Judge led inquiry
into corruption at the time of Stephen Lawrence Inquiry.

24 March - MPS seek clarification

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2014030002057
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 21/03/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

Please disclose the record of inquiry into Kent Gun Ranges in the inquiry
and prosecution of Frank Etim. Kent Police Authority called for inquiry
and report in 1997 re history of Middle Easterners training with Uzis at
6th Thanet Gun range. Kent Police failed to comply with this call for
inquiry at the time they were deployed conducting Stephen Lawrence
inquiry.   As you may know if Kent Police had complied with the call for
inquiry it would have been inevitable that they carry out investigation at
Croydon which would have included relationships between criminals and
Regional Crime Squad now so pertinent to the Mark Ellison QC review and to
the forthcoming Judge led inquiry into corruption at the time of Stephen
Lawrence Inquiry.

This is to inform you that I cannot identify any specific records /
documents that will satisfy your request based on the details you have
provided.  To enable the MPS to meet your request could you please provide
this office with further information.  I provide some guidance that may
assist you more clearly describe the information you require:

Your request continually refers to Kent Police and Kent Police Authority.
 If you require data from Kent Police you will need to request it from
Kent Police.  The MPS does not hold data for any police force other than
the MPS.  If you require information from the MPS, you will need to
clearly and concisely state what recorded information you require

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days, subject to the information not being exempt or containing
a reference to a third party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
23 April 2014 I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this
request and will treat it as withdrawn.

24th March - your comment to clarification

Thank you for your response. I plan to include the question now in
a submission to Theresa May concerning the Judge led inquiry
Stephen Lawrence case.

I would be grateful if you would search records related to the
Metropolitan Police role (National life saving role well done Met)
in the pre-emptive arrests of the IRA mains electric distribution
attack team 1996. (Broad Oak Canterbury sub station surveillance
etc)

To determine if any additional Kent related information and case
cross referral was placed on the Met Record ?

I would be grateful, as you are the lead anti-terror police, if you
would check your record re ETIM case (in which you would have
liaised with Dyfed Powys) to determine if your records include the
matter of unidentified squad(s) of middle easterners training with
Uzis at 6th Thanet Gun Range Kent.

For your information I have emailed Mark Ellison QC to draw his
attention to the debrief Lawrence case at Dover 1998. The matter of
Regional Crime Squad officers in 1995 facing complaint for
moonlighting as bodyguards on police time.

I would expect the Judge led inquiry to answer who provided that
bodyguard work. Was it the bodyguard company who allegedly used 6th
Thanet Gun Range and Stone Lodge Range Dartford ? Did one of their
employees go on later in the 90s to run the Yetgoch training. Did
one senior member of the bodyguard group work for the late Charlie
Kray ? Did another work for a private investigation company run by
a retired DI ? Did that inquiry company pay RCS officers for CRB
checks and assistance ? Did it have wealthy Russian clients ? Were
these Russian clients associated with bodyguard training contracts
in Russia ? Were any senior members of the bodyguard company in
Legion of Frontiersmen ? Was this under Special Branch inquiry 1995
? Was an RCS man arrested in 1998 as a result of the 1998 Dover
debrief ? Was he arrested in possession of an unlicensed firearm ?
If so was this cross referred to the gun supply conviction Donald
Urquhart murder and the Special Branch inquiry allegedly
investigating LOF ?

The reason Kent Police Authority call for inquiry was not actioned
is that one month after MacPherson Report was published Jack Straw
(In spite of Sir Ronnie Flanagan concerns because Kent Chief
constable had just been deployed on Rosemary Nelson murder inquiry
and would be cross case compromised) refused to compel it.

I want to see Straw on oath before the Judge led inquiry.

23rd April - MPS apologise for delay

I write in relation to your above Freedom of Information enquiry, for
which you were advised that a response would be forthcoming by 18/04/14.
 
Unfortunately, due to the Easter holiday period, there has been a delay in
responding to your request.
 
I now anticipate that a response will be forthcoming within the next two
weeks.
Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused.

23rd April - Your reply to letter

Thank you. No problem with delay as it is a pretty comprehensive
question.

Sir Bernard Hogan Howe is now holding a copy of the report considered last
year by Terrorism Law expert Lord Carlile QC.

I have now obtained report re Devonport nuclear incident 2012 (due to
failure of backup generators) and provided copies of the relevant two
pages to Lord Carlile and Alex Salmond (re Dounreay and Hunsterston B
nuclear incidents of backup failures) but I have yet to provide copies to
Sir Bernard.

23rd April - MPS section 17(2) letter summary

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our
response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are
currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the
information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond
within 20 working days.
For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 24 - National Security
Section 30 - Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public
Authorities
I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 20/05/2014.

23rd April - your comment to MPS letter

Thank you for advising delay. There is clearly a public interest to be
weighed.

But from my side of the fence the law is Sections 38B and 54 Terrorism Act
2000 so I would have to report my information to you by law anyway.

I am anticipating that you will in full or part have to make a public
interest decision to refuse to disclose. But the FOI is fully meritted as
you no doubt appreciate

19th May - MPS Response summary

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
at the Counter Terrorism Command.

Before I explain the reasons behind the response, I thought that it would
be helpful to outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.

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, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether
it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that
information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.

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

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

In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for
this particular request.  The MPS can neither confirm nor deny that it
holds this information as the duty in s1(1)(a) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following
exemptions:

Section 23(5) - Information supplied by, or concerning, certain security
bodies
Section 24(2) - National Security
Section 30(3) - Criminal Investigations

Section 23 - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with
security matters
(5) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, 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).
This is an absolute exemption and I am therefore not required to complete
a public interest test.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...
Section 24 - National Security
(1) Information which does not fall within section 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.

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

This exemption is qualified and prejudice-based. The MPS is therefore
required to provide you with a Prejudice Test (evidence of harm) and
Public Interest test on the application of this exemption.

Prejudice Test (Evidence of Harm)
When considering the 'neither confirm nor deny' provisions, a public
authority is not restricted to considering the consequences of the actual
response that it would be required to provide under s1(1)(a). For example,
if it does hold the information, the public authority should consider not
only what would be revealed by confirming that it holds the information,
but also what would be revealed if it were to deny the information was
held. It is sufficient to demonstrate that either a hypothetical
confirmation or a hypothetical denial would engage the exemption. It is
not necessary to show that both potential responses would engage the
exemption.

Confirming or denying whether any information is held would be of use to
those who seek to disrupt police activity as it would, by process of
elimination, enable individuals with the inclination to identify where
specific companies or people have or have not been subject of police
tactics or investigations.

To confirm  whether any information is held in respect of one piece of
information  and then neither confirm nor deny whether another piece of
information is held, is likely to lead the public to deduce that
information is held where a NCND response is applied.  

Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used
to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations.  Information
that undermines the operational integrity of these operational activities
(whether information is or is not held in this instance) will adversely
affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security
and law enforcement.

To confirm or deny whether any information is held particularly during or
following a Counter Terrorism investigation would be extremely useful to
those involved in terrorist activity, as it would enable them to ascertain
what type of person or companies may or may not be monitored in any way,
enabling those with criminal intent to ascertain whether they may or may
not have evaded detection. It would also enable individuals to make mosaic
requests which can then provide an overall picture as to who or what
companies or people may be monitored in any way. This would enable
individuals to evade detection and compromise the ability of the police to
safeguard national security.

It remains our position that under FOIA the MPS will not confirm or deny
whether the MPS holds any information pertinent to your request. This
would be counter effective to the safeguarding of national security, and
increase the risk of crime if the MPS does not take a consistent approach
to requests regarding information held from investigations, particularly
where they relate to specific individuals, groups or companies. An
increase in crime which arises out of an inconsistent approach to the
'NCND' principle may lead to an escalation of criminal activity that could
have a detrimental effect on national security and police intelligence.
 An adverse disclosure may encourage extreme groups of society to commit
offences.  

Public Interest Test
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S24 - The information simply
relates to national security and disclosure would not actually harm it.
The public are entitled to know what security measures are in place.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S24 - To confirm or deny
whether information is held risks prejudicing national security. It is not
in the public interest to compromise ongoing or future operations which
protect the security or infrastructure of the UK by undermining the need
to use the NCND approach to such requests consistently.

The public rightly expect that security measures are put in place to
protect the community that we serve. To confirm who or what information is
held would highlight to criminals and possible terrorists intelligence
tactics which may be employed to protect national security. To disclose
such intelligence (whether information is or is not held in this case) and
allow the MPS to respond to similar mosaic requests in regards to other
entries and individuals would not be in the public interest. Confirming or
denying whether information is held would dramatically weaken MPS ability
to safeguard national security in the fight against terrorism on a local
and national scale.

Irrespective of what information is or is not held, the public entrust the
Police Service to make appropriate decisions with regard to their safety
and protection and the only way of reducing risk is to be cautious with
what is placed into the public domain. It therefore remains the case that
there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding our ability to
enforce the law and by extension maintain national security.

Whilst the MPS neither confirm nor deny whether any information is held in
respect of this request, the cumulative effect of terrorists gathering
information and intelligence from various sources would be even more
impactive when linked to other information gathered from various sources
about terrorism. The more information disclosed over time gives a more
detailed account of the tactical infrastructure of not only the force area
but also the country as a whole. Any incident that results from such an
adverse disclosure would by default affect national security and is not in
the public interest.
Balancing Test - Whilst there is a public interest in keeping everyone
informed about security measures, there is also a duty to ensure public
safety.  To confirm or deny whether information is held in relation to the
6th Thanet Gun Range and a link with an IRA cell and unidentified squad(s)
of middle easterners training with Uzis could be detrimental to any
current or future operations.  Therefore, after weighing up the competing
interests I have determined that the balancing test for disclosure is not
made out.  
Section 30 - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities
(3) 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) or (2).
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000...

This is a qualified exemption for which I am required to conduct a public
interest test.

Public Interest Test
Factors favouring confirmation or denial for S30 ¡V To confirm or deny
that we hold any information concerning the possible use of the 6th Thanet
gun range would allow the public to be satisfied that any investigation is
being properly conducted and that public funds are being correctly used in
the investigation.  The release of information could allow the public to
make informed decisions about how police gather intelligence and carry out
investigations. This would greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of
public debate, which would otherwise likely be steeped in rumour and
speculation.

Factors against confirmation or denial for S30 ¡V By confirming or denying
whether any information is held in relation to the possible use of the 6th
Thanet Gun Range by the IRA or middle easterners would hinder the
prevention or detection of crime.    The MPS would not wish to reveal who,
what and when intelligence is recorded and the extent of their
investigations, as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and
investigative process. This would impact on police resources and more
crime and terrorist incidents would be committed, placing individuals at
risk.

Balancing Test - The strongest reason favouring disclosure of the
requested information, if held, is that this would give the general public
an opportunity to see how the police carry-out their day-to-day job in
gathering intelligence.  The strongest reason favouring non-disclosure of
this information, if held, is to confirm or deny that this level of
policing activity has or has not occurred in any specific area would
enable those engaged in criminal or terrorist activity to identify the
focus of policing activity.  After weighing up competing interests, the
balance test favours neither confirmation or denial.

Overall Balance Test
The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police
service will not divulge whether information is or is not held if to do so
would place the safety of an individual at risk or undermine National
Security.  Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of
policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is
appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various
groups or individuals there is a very strong public interest in
safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and operations in the
highly sensitive area of extremism, terrorism and crime prevention, and
public disorder.  

There have previously been requests for information that the Counter
Terrorism Command  may or may not hold on individuals or groups where the
applicant has been unhappy with the reply and pursued a decision from the
Information Commissioner.  On these occasions the ICO have upheld the
approach taken based upon the use of the Section 23(5) exemption.  In
FS50258193 the Information Commissioner states¡¨ The Commissioner is
satisfied that there will be very few instances where the information held
by Special Branch is not also held by a Section 23(3) body, even if it was
not directly or indirectly supplied by them, as the nature of the work of
special branches involves very close working with security bodies and
regular sharing of information and intelligence.¡¨

Similarly in FS50263467 the Information Commissioner further states ¡§that
there may be instances where Special Branch information would not relate
to a Section 23(3) body, although these would be few and far between.¡¨
 The ICO has also accepted in the same case that ¡§all documents compiled
and held by Special Branch will on the balance of probabilities relate to,
or have been supplied by, a body specified in Section 23(3).  Therefore,
any information falling within the scope of this request which might be
held by the public authority would be exempt under section 23.  To
disclose whether such information is or is not held would itself be a
disclosure of exempt information.¡¨

To disclose such specific details, if held, of any high profile
investigation would give the general public an opportunity to see how the
police carry-out their day-to-day job in gathering intelligence and how
public money is spent. However, this would be to the detriment of that
investigation as it would allow criminals to have first hand knowledge of
the investigative process, which would lead to less crime detection and
therefore criminals being brought to justice.

FOIA is considered to be a release to the world as once the information is
published the public authority, in this case the MPS, has no control over
what use is made of that information.  Whilst not questioning the motives
of the applicant it could be of use to those who seek to disrupt any
police investigation as it would by a process of elimination, enable them
to identify what specific aspects are or are not of interest to the police
during an investigation. This would lead to an increase of harm to either
the investigation itself or the subject of the investigation. To disclose
any information, if held, other than that which is already in the public
domain, could potentially be misused proving detrimental to ongoing and
future investigations.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is
appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional
circumstances. The areas of police interest is a sensitive issue that
reveals local intelligence. The Police Service is charged with enforcing
the law preventing and detecting crime and protecting the communities we
serve.  

Therefore, after weighing up the competing interests I have determined
that confirmation or denial of whether any information you have
specifically requested regarding the 6th Thanet Gun Range, is held, would
compromise the effective delivery of operational law enforcement.  The
public interest is defined not as what the public might find interesting,
but there must be some tangible benefit to the public in the disclosure of
the interest.  To disclose information, if held, pertinent to any
investigation that may lead to further intelligence would undermine these
enquiries and the role and the effectiveness of the ongoing investigation.

[5] 25th March - Your Request Reference: 2014030002382
Entitled: Information from Sudden Death Inquiry Child Patient Death 1995
Guys Hospital
 
Please refer to your case file for the Coroners sudden death
inquiry liaising with Southwark Coroners Court Coroners Officer
John OVENELL 1995.

The death of a child patient during hospital mains power and backup
power failure.

Please disclose whether the case was reviewed after inquest as a
result of mistakes in the investigation (Recording the manufacturer
name from information which was in fact the power rating). As a
result of this mistake evidence submitted by affidavit was
rejected. This was evidence of internal inquiry at Petbow 1987
about a 3 fault sequential failure of power at Guys.

It emerged, once the mistake was uncovered after inquest, that the
1995 incident was an exact re-run of the 1987 incident. Using FBI
reliability expectations the second incident defied odds of 3
million million to one of such a recurrence.

A crime complaint of sabotage and reasonably suspected unlawful
killing was put to Kent Police to liaise with Met.

In August 1997 Kent Police Authority called for inquiry and report
at a time Kent Police were conducting Lawrence inquiry.

It seems to me that your sudden death case record should have
updates. Please disclose

25th March - MPS seek clarification

This is to inform you that I cannot identify any specific records /
documents that will satisfy your request based on the details you have
provided.  To enable the MPS to meet your request could you please provide
this office with further information.  I provide some guidance that may
assist you more clearly describe the information you require:

Please can you state in a clear and concise way what recorded information
you are requesting from the MPS?

Your request refers to Kent Police, andy information regarding Kent Police
should be addressed to them and not the MPS.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable
of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration I have
decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am unable to
ascertain what information you have requested, as defined by Section 8
(2)(c).

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your
application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason
you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek
assistance from any other available source.

I attach an excerpt from the Information Commissioner's website which may
assist you in composing any future Freedom of Information requests.

What can I request under the Freedom of Information Act?

You have the right to request any information held by public authorities.
The Act allows access to recorded information, such as emails, meeting
minutes, research or reports held by public authorities in England,
Northern Ireland and Wales and some authorities located in Scotland.

You have not made a request for recorded information which may be held by
the MPS but questions around a topic.
You will need to be specific as to the recorded information you require.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days, subject to the information not being exempt or containing
a reference to a third party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
24 April 2014 I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this
request and will treat it as withdrawn.

26th March - Your comments to MPS letter

Thank you for your help and your answer is sufficient for my
purposes. I am today posting the report file of 160 pages to Sir
Bernard Hogan-Howe.

I will regard this FOI as complete. The file is obviously the Guys Child
Patient Death 1995 Southwark Coroner with Coroners Officer John Ovenell.

The question is whether that case file was reviewed in 1996, 1997
and 2003 (Jonathan Aitken concerns, Kent Police Authority call for
inquiry and General De Chasterlain report of concern to Northern
Ireland Office) There should also have been reference to the case
between 2005 and 2007 when new security of electrical supply
regulations for NHS were drafted after correspondence between myself and
Tony Blair.

28th March - MPS response (summary)

Thank you for your E-mail dated 26/03/2014 in response to our request for
clarification of your Freedom of Information Act request above.

You have said that you 'will regard this FOI as complete', therefore we
will now consider this request withdrawn.

28th March - Your further correspondence

Yes thank you. The case was reported in the detail by me in report

invited by the Chris Huhne post Japanese tsunami review of UK

nuclear security and resilience.

It had also been reported in report invited by Scottish Energy

Minister Ian Grey some years ago re the serious nuclear incidents

due to backup generator failures at Dounreay and Hunterston B.

These report contents were copied into reports last year to Lord

Carlile QC and his successor independent QC Reviewer of Terrorism

Law.

And now the report this week is with Sir Bernard Hogan Howe.

This is a public record so I put some explanation on. The Kent

Police Authority in 1997 called for inquiry and report on this

child death in the context of a call for inquiry into unreliability

of generators through company fraud and/or sabotage consistent with

Stage 3 IRA terrorist plan (Garland Plan).

Kent Police were conducting Lawrence Inquiry in which the point of

convergence appears to be the debrief 1998 of an RCS officer called

Putnam. The Kent Police refusal to comply with their police

authority calls for inquiry and Puttnam's information recently

publicised by Mark Ellison QC. If Kent Police had complied with

their police authority call then it was inevitable they would have

investigated RCS in which Det sgt John Davidson served, private

investigation companies headed by ex senior detectives (such as

those featured in the unsolved Daniel Morgan murder. And the facts

of such proper inquiry would have been reported to MacPherson

Inquiry.

The case linkage was in the alleged generator saboteur associates

who also featured in the Kent Police Authority call for inquiry and

report.

Thank you for your efforts and you can mark FOI application on your

records as withdrawn. Over to Sir Bernard and Theresa May MP for

(insert further cover up or proper inquiry in the fullness of time)

Pray for justice for an innocent child.

[6] 4th June 2014 - Your Request reference: 2014060000558
Entitled: Further Inquiries arising from arrests of UDA Margate Kent 1992

In 1992 your Det sgt LEIGHTON was arresting officer of UDA hit men
and drugs importers based in Margate. These arrests led to the
murder trial, victim supergrass David Norris, that started six days
before Stephen Lawrence was killed.

Would you disclose if there were follow up inquiries ?

(1) Into thefts of cyclohexanone from Sericol Broadstairs Kent. A
theft inquiry which in 93 discovered the massive contamination of
Thanet aquifer by cyclohexanone.

This is a chemical used in back street drugs factories such as for
producing PCP. It is also potentially dangerous in hands of
terrorists as it is explosive on contact with acid and is dangerous
in tunnels and undergrounds.

(2) Cross referral to the Deal Barracks security cases and
complaints 1981 to 1989 (Deal Barracks bombing by IRA)

(3) Cross referral to Thanet Council process in which a Head of
Tourism and leisure Dept claimed unfair dismissal for having helped
RUC with inquiries into IRA supportive right wing in Thanet

(4) The support and training of mercenaries in Thanet who attacked
Mandela Regime (alleged by Searchlight magazine who gave evidence
to the 1994 Desmond Tutu commission of inquiry). Especially
relevant I think to Theresa May judge led inquiry Lawrence and
Morgan cases as it may be the case that whilst Doreen Lawrence was
meeting Mandela, during his state visit, two weeks after her son's
death, mercenaries in Kent were preparing to attack Mandela regime
? The implication in the follow up inquiries being that some parts
of the Met would have been aware of this ?

(5) The connections between Armscor, South Africa apartheid regime
arming UDA and UDA base in Thanet where it seems mercenary attacks
on Mandela regime may have been prepared and launched ?

I believe that it will be put to Theresa May that her Judge led
inquiry must establish if Clifford Norris was on the run from
police or under protection of police as allegedly in Kent were
notorious UDA torturers and drugs criminals.

Given the spectacular collapse of the David Norris murder trial
perhaps the Lawrence inquiry acted as a very effective distraction
from the serious public interest questions about the extent of
state involvement with loyalist paramilitaries? State dealings with
apartheid regime including David Cameron's mission with Dr David
Kelly of 1989?

Could you disclose the nature of follow up inquiries consequent on
the 1992 arrests of UDA at their Margate base ? Thank you

4th June - your further correspondence

To be clear Paul Condon became Chief constable Kent 1988. A time
when crime complaints and security warnings on Deal Royal Marines
Barracks were nil actioned by Kent Police (all 41 lines of nil
actioned inquiry are listed in the report sent to Sir Bernard Hogan
Howe March 2014 and as yet not acknowledged)

Condon was Chief constable of Kent in 89 when 11 young Royal
Marines were killed in the terrorist bombing of Deal Barracks.

He was Chief constable of Kent when Met made arrests in Margate
1992 of UDA hit men and drugs importers/pushers.

In 1993 he moved to the Met Commissioner position with all that
recent Kent knowledge a rattling around his head ?

He was Chief constable in Kent 1990 when the EU resolution to
investigate and dismantle unlawful military groups was ignored by
Kent Police.

It was Kent Police chosen to conduct the Lawrence Inquiry 1997 and
then they refused to comply with their own police authority call
for inquiry into matters terrorist and paramilitary in Kent.

I think it is essential that a Judge led inquiry call Condon on oath.

6th June - MPS advise re aggregation of two requests

Please note; The two requests you have sent in, have been aggregated
into this one request. will be delt on case ref - 2014060000558

6th June - Your correspondence

Thank you for your response.
I understand that Thanet District Council, under new leadership, is
consulting on creating policy guidance for compliance with
Statutory Reporting Duties of Terrorism Law. This FOI is also
relevant to that.

The Kent Police and Crime Panel has responded promptly to FOI to
disclose that they have NO POLICY for compliance with statutory
reporting duties of Terrorism Law. It is difficult to see how they
can fulfil their public duty, to hold the PCC to account, without
such a policy.

In the case of Kent PCC there are matters raised concerning
Sections 38B and 54 Terrorism Act 2000 and concerning the reporting
provisions relating to civil nuclear security. Yet the panel who
are supposed to hold PCC to account have no policy for doing so.

I have never liked any aspect of law enforcement departing from
Crown Office subject of an oath to HM The Queen sole fount of
justice. EG The Attorney General is sworn to the Queen to uphold an
overriding duty to ensure govt acts lawfully ! The principle that
the law shall not be broken to enforce the law. Without the oath of
Crown ministerial office where is the accountability ?

On a practical level the law designates reportable knowledge and
then councils like Thanet have no policy or guidance for
compliance. Hence the intended Terrorism Law creation of a trawl
for information ? Not effective.

10th June - MPS seek clarification

To enable the MPS to meet your request could you please provide  this
office with further information.  Please can you specify the exact nature
of your query and outline only the questions for which you require a
response.

I note that you have made several references to instances which occurred
in Kent and would advise that if you require data from Kent Police or any
other Kent authority you will need to refer your request to them. The MPS
does not hold data for any police force other than  the MPS.  If you
require information from the MPS, you will need to clearly and concisely
state what recorded information you require.

After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and you
will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of
20 working days, subject to the information not being exempt or containing
a reference to a third party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received by
7th July 2014  I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with this
request and will treat it as withdrawn.

10 June - Your clarification

Thank you for your response seeking clarification. The arrests of UDA men
at Margate 1992 and the consequent murder trial, for the assassination of
David Norris, were Metropolitan Police cases.

You are asked to disclose whether you raised inquiry, by Kent Police, into
thefts of cyclohexanone from Sericol Broadstairs OR whether you had the
results of such inquiry properly reported to you.

I anticipate that there will be one more FOI to Met to enable me to write
a submission to Theresa May's Judge Led Inquiry. That is Sir John
Stevenson and security reports, from Kent, given in advance of the 2003
jubilee celebrations.

At this stage I would like to know if Met raised or if they were properly
informed of the Sericol solvent theft inquiry in Kent in 1992/93. Clearly
if you were not informed then you had nothing on Met record for Sir John
Stevens to refer to ten years later ?

24th June - MPS response summary

This letter is to inform you that it will not be possible to respond to
your request within the cost threshold.  This is because having searched
our MPS databases there is no mention of the thefts of cyclohexanone from
Sericol, Broadstairs.  However, to ensure that no information is held on
the files relating to the murder of Stephen Norris we would need to
conduct a full review of these, which comprise of 16 parts and 86 boxes.
 If it took us on average 15 minutes to review each file or box, we would
very quickly reach the 18 hour cost threshold defined by the legislation.

Therefore, we estimate that the cost of complying with this request would
exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit has been specified in
regulations and for agencies outside central Government; this is set at
¢G450.00.   This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 18
hours [at a rate of ¢G25 per hour] in determining whether the MPS holds
the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this letter acts
as a Refusal Notice.

(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.

(1) Section 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.

(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.

Unfortunately due to the specific nature of your request I am unable to
suggest any practical way in which your request may be modified in order
to bring it within the 18 hours stipulated by the Regulations.  

Please note that if you were able to redefine your request, which may not
invoke the cost exemption, other exemptions may apply.

24 June - Your reply

Thank you for your response. It suffices really because if you have
no case referral flag for cyclohexanone thefts from Sericol I can
infer that the inquiry was never properly cross referred into Met
Police files.

It is a solvent used in back street labs to produce PCP (Angel
Dust) and is explosive on contact with acid. It would be dangerous
in tunnels and underground systems.

[7] 2 September - Your request Reference No 2014090000199
Entitled: Value of seized evidence and details of proceeds of crime action
Met arrests of UDA 1992 Margate Kent

We have previously established by FOI that you have no record of
whether Cyclohexanone theft inquiries at Sericol Broadstairs 92/93
were raised as a consequence of the above 1992 arrests of UDA at
Margate by Det sgt Alex LEIGHTON. (later founder Mayfayre
Associates)

Would you now please disclose whether drugs were seized as
evidence, if so the value thereof and whether, in any event, there
was a proceeds of crime recovery action ?

Would you also disclose whether or not the Met Police action
(leading to the David Norris murder trial 1993) cross referred to
an existing Kent Police case of paramilitary collusion. That would
be the 1987 arrests of Kent based TA men, unlawful missions to
Ireland, allegedly forged UDR ID cards and documentation. And
whether any consideration was given by Met to the 1990 EU
Resolution on member states to dismantle unauthorised military
groups. That would be military training groups who operated without
Crown authority. And the security warnings that had arisen on Deal
Royal Marines Barracks as a consequence of the local arrests for
paramilitary collusion activity (the later 22.9.89 Deal barracks
bombing case).

My interpretation of Secretary of State Defence reply is that the
International Bodyguards Assn, created at Deal RM Barracks between
76 and 83, had no Crown authority to conduct its live fire military
training. Theresa May has been asked to ensure that her Judge led
inquiry answer if a Director of International Bodyguards Assn
worked for Mayfayre or any associated company mentioned in Leveson
Inquiry or subsequent parliamentary process. I hope that sets out
the context to the request for disclosure

1 October - Your comment to delay

You appear to have failed to respond within the deadline. Please give this
your urgent attention. I should add that Kent Police seem to be failing to
respond to a related FOI request re a joint
SBS/Gladio paramilitary exercise of 1989. Exercise Waterland.

IE In the year Kent Police refused to record a number of crime
complaints, related to paramilitary collusion and Deal Royal
Marines Barracks security and failed to pursue all 41 aspects of
warnings about the barracks, there was in fact a military exercise
liaising with the very sort of Gladio units who were relevant to
the security warnings. on 22.9.89 IRA bombed the barracks killing
11 RM Bandsmen. But it is looking less and less likely the
targetting was purely to hit a low security school of music. It is
looking more likely that avowedly marxist elements of IRA
embarrassed a secret UK military /pan European unlawful
paramilitary network anti Soviet exercise.

Information suggests that two senior members of the Deal Barracks
based paramilitary training "Private contractors" went on to work
for Clifford Norris associate Charlie Kray and for probably
Mayfayre Associates the private inquiry company of former Met UDA
arrests case officer Det sgt Leighton.

As yet the public does not know the source of moonlight bodyguard
work to Det sgt John Davidson and four of his RCS colleagues for
which they were disciplined 1995.

The fact is that in 1997 Kent Police Authority called for inquiry
and report August 1997. A time Kent Police were calling the met
"The B Team" as Kent conducted the Lawrence Inquiry.

But if Kent Police had complied with their own police authority
call for inquiry then many of the questions now asked by Mark
Ellison QC review would have been investigated and accounted to
MacPherson Inquiry AT THE TIME.

I trust you can see the hugely significant public interest here.

I look forward to your response to this FOI.

2 October - MPS response to procedural complaint summary

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) acknowledges the delay to you
receiving a response to your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FoIA).
 
Therefore, a public authority must inform the applicant in writing whether
it holds the information requested and if so, communicate that information
to the applicant, promptly, but not later than 20 working days after
receipt of the request.  Your request for information was received by the
MPS on the 2nd September 2014 and therefore a response should have been
sent by the 30th September 2014.  

Whilst the review is unable to suggest why an item of correspondence sent
electronically was not received, I can however reassure you that the MPS
sent a letter from our Metric System which is the MPS system used to
administer such requests under the FoIA. The letter was sent on the 1st
October 2014 at 14:07 hours. I attach a copy of that response to this
procedural review decision at Appendix A.

Whilst it can be seen that the response was sent on the 21st working day,
I can confirm that in this instance a failure to respond to your request
within the time limit is a breach of section 10(1) of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 and apologise for the delay in this case.  

Appendix A

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014090000199
 
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 02/09/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:
 
We have previously established by FOI that you have no record of whether
Cyclohexanone theft inquiries at Sericol Broadstairs 92/93 were raised as
a consequence of the above 1992 arrests of UDA at Margate  by Det sgt Alex
LEIGHTON. (later founder Mayfayre Associates)
 
Would you now please disclose whether drugs were seized as evidence, if so
the value thereof and whether, in any event, there was a proceeds of crime
recovery action ?
 
Would you also disclose whether or not the Met Police action (leading to
the David Norris murder trial 1993) cross referred to an existing Kent
Police case of paramilitary collusion.  That would be the 1987 arrests of
Kent based TA men, unlawful missions to Ireland, allegedly forged UDR ID
cards and documentation.  And whether any consideration was given by Met
to the 1990 EU Resolution on member states to dismantle unauthorised
military groups.  That would be military training groups who operated
without Crown authority.  And the security warnings that had arisen on
Deal Royal Marines Barracks as a consequence of the local arrests for
paramilitary collusion activity (the later 22.9.89 Deal barracks bombing
case).
 
My interpretation of Secretary of State Defence reply is that the
International Bodyguards Assn, created at Deal RM Barracks between 76 and
83, had no Crown authority to conduct its live fire military training.
Theresa May has been asked to ensure that her Judge led inquiry answer if
a Director of International Bodyguards Assn worked for Mayfayre or any
associated company mentioned in Leveson Inquiry or subsequent
parliamentary process.  I hope that sets out the context to the request
for disclosure.
 
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse your request as it has been deemed
a Vexatious Request.
 
Under section 1 of the FOIA public authorities are obliged to provide
information where it is requested by a member of the public. However,
Section 14 (1) provides:
 
"(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious."
 
ICO Guidance sets out a number of criteria relevant to the identification
of a request as vexatious and these are listed below and I have also
provided an internet link to this documentation relating to Vexatious or
Repeated Requests.
 ¡P        Abusive or aggressive language
¡P        Burden on the authority
¡P        Personal grudges
¡P        Unreasonable persistence
¡P        Unfounded accusations
¡P        Intransigence
¡P        Frequent or overlapping requests
¡P        Deliberate intention to cause annoyance
¡P        Scattergun approach
¡P        Disproportionate effort
¡P        No obvious intent to obtain information
¡P        Futile requests
¡P        Frivolous requests
 [2]http://ico.org.uk/for_organisations/guid...
 The Freedom of Information Act was designed to give individuals a greater
right of access to official information with the intention of making
public bodies more transparent and accountable.  However, The Information
Commissioner recognises that dealing with
unreasonable requests can place a strain on resources and get in the way
of delivering mainstream services or answering legitimate requests. As
such Section 14(1) can be applied to a request.
 
Having reviewed your request, I have determined that the following factors
have deemed your request vexatious:
 
The request is unreasonably persistent;
The request makes no obvious intent to obtain information;
The request is futile.
Frequent or overlapping requests
 
You have submitted previous freedom of information requests to the MPS
where you have also made reference to and inferred a connection between
Kent Police Authority¡¦s request for an inquiry and report in 1997 on
paramilitary and terrorist issues in Kent, Clifford Norris, the Deal
Barracks bombing, UDA bases in Kent, the David Norris murder trial and
Stephen Lawrence Investigation.  In addition, you have also made reference
to your request for an inquiry to the Home Secretary, Teresa May.  By your
continuous inference to these specific issues the MPS has deemed that the
nature of these requests show an unreasonable persistence by the requestor
to link and reopen a variety of issues which have already been subject to
public scrutiny, where it has been deemed necessary.
 
By the nature of these requests it has also been deemed that the requester
has abused their rights of access to information by using this legislation
as a means to vent their anger/frustration at the decision not to hold an
inquiry where it is believed that the outcome would clearly show a
connection with some or all of these events.  The request made has also
been determined to be futile as whilst it is recognised that the requestor
has a specific interest in these various subjects, proving a connection
between these is the sole purpose of the individual.  Where evidence has
been found to justify any inquiry, this has conducted or been subject to
some form of independent investigation.
 
As stated, the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to grant
access to information that enables the public to scrutinise the decisions
and actions taken by public authorities in their official capacity, and to
increase the accountability and transparency of those authorities. While
it could be argued that any disclosure of any information by a public
authority demonstrates transparency, and a case could invariably be made
that public scrutiny of disclosed information directly equates to the
accountability of public authorities, it is difficult to relate these
arguments to this request, particularly as the request does not relate to
the workings of the public authority itself, nor does it concern the
provision of services by or the operational functions of the public
authority.
 
Taking into account all the arguments above, it is for these reasons that
section 14(1) has been applied in this case.
 
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

The Information Commissioner

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thank you for your anticipated response. I will mark it as some of the information disclosed. Since I have found out some of what I requested to know.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Card

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org