[name removed April 2013]

Dear Ministry of Defence,

1) What is MoD policy on responding to complaints or allegations of misconduct by our Armed forces?

2) How many complaints and allegations of misconduct have been received by the MoD that have simply not been acknowledged or responded to?

3) Does the MoD have any knowledge of RAF, RMP or navy police editing police interview tapes that have resulted in criminal convictions?

4) If yes to 3) on how many occasions, and who would authorise it?

5) Have any allegations of RAF, RMP or Navy police interview tapes being edited ever been made, if so how many?

6) How have these allegations been investigated, and what were the findings? Have the plaintiff been responded to in writing?

Yours faithfully,

[first name of requester removed] [last name of requester removed]

Donnie Mackenzie left an annotation ()

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar...

Manufacturing false audio recordings through editing is widely used in my belief. As mentioned in the above article, they will try and get the person to say the key words they want; with the final creation(s) in mind.

DCDS PERS-SEC-FOI MAILBOX (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    20121026 FOI 17 10 2012 121246 003 last name of requester removed Final.pdf

    39K Download View as HTML

Mr [last name of requester removed]

 

Please find attached our response to your request of 17 October made under
the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Defence Personnel Secretariat|

Ministry of Defence | Level 6, Zone D |

MOD Main Building | Whitehall |

London | SW1A 2HB 

P Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

 

 

[name removed April 2013]

Dear DCDS PERS-SEC-FOI MAILBOX (MULTIUSER),

Please may I put in a request for an internal review. I would like to discuss, how to go about bringing all my FOI requests to allow them to be brought within the cost limit.

For this specific request, I am happy to have it broken down to the last 5 years only and limited to an any allegations of deliberate breaches of human rights (specifically rights to a fair trial and rights to a private life).

Yours sincerely,

[first name of requester removed] [last name of requester removed]

[name removed April 2013]

Dear DCDS PERS-SEC-FOI MAILBOX (MULTIUSER),

Can I please have a breakdown of all information held that I am requesting and the predicted costing of each request.

I am quite happy to agree with you that some of them are very similar in nature so would be happy to amend them to bring them into cost limits.

How much would it cost to find out the number of criminal convictions from summary hearings between 2004 to the present date (additionally breaking it down year on year and before the 2006 armed forces act?)

Yours sincerely,

[first name of requester removed] [last name of requester removed]

CIO-CI-AccessReview4(Crawford, James C2), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr [last name of requester removed],

I have been forwarded your request for an Internal Review. However, it
is unclear as to whether you would like the Department to conduct an
internal review of the initial decision, to refuse your request on the
grounds of cost under the exemption in section 12 of the Freedom of
Information Act, or whether you would like us to provide a response to
your refined request.

Yours sincerely,

James Crawford

[name removed April 2013]

Dear CIO-CI-AccessReview4(Crawford, James C2),

I would like to apply for an internal review as they currently stand please.

Yours sincerely,

[first name of requester removed] [last name of requester removed]

CIO-FOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr [last name of requester removed],

Acknowledgement of Request for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Internal Review

The Head of Corporate Information has asked me to acknowledge your email
received here today (26 October 2012) in which you asked for an internal
review of your request for information under the FOIA, dealt with by the
Defence Personnel Secretariat, our reference 17-10-2012-121246-003

The Department's internal target for completing internal reviews is 20
working days and we therefore aim to complete the review and respond to
you by 23 November 2012. While we are working hard to achieve this, in
the interests of providing you with a realistic indication of when you
should expect a response, I should advise that the majority are actually
currently taking between 20 and 40 working days to complete.

The review will involve a full, independent, reconsideration of the
handling of the case as well as the final decision.

Regards,

Yours sincerely,

FOI Internal Review team

------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

James Crawford| CIO-CI-AccessReview4 | 01.N.15 MOD Main Building |
Whitehall | London SW1A 2HB | Tel: 020 7218 7785 (9621 87785) | Fax: 020
7218 5471 (9621 85471)

Please note that MOD out-of-office notifications do not extend beyond
Defence. If you feel you have had not had a timely response to an email,
please phone to check that I am in office or email the MOD Internal
Review team at [email address].

show quoted sections

[name removed April 2013]

Dear CIO-CI-AccessReview4(Crawford, James C2),

Due to the aggregation of my Freedom of Information requests, it is not my wish to obtain information from the MoD that will be of excessive cost and be of little benefit to me. I also do not wish to keep pressing the issue needlessly, I therefore withdraw all requests with the exception of the following:-
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mi...
(Unassigned)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...
(29-10-2012-155226-019)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ra...
(Unassigned)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/st...
(26-09-2012-155714-006)
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...
26-09-2012-160038-007

These are the only Freedom of information requests I will take to the information commissioner. Of course The MoD are acting within the law and framework of the freedom of information act 2000 by aggregating requests, however if the above requests are aggregated and found to be of excessive cost, I would request a breakdown of the cost of responding to each one separately and consider my actions before going to the information commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

[first name of requester removed] [last name of requester removed]

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr [last name of requester removed],

 

Thank you for your email of 09 November 2012. The Department is treating
this email as a refinement of your previous requests made under FOIA 2000,
received in the Department on the same day. As such, three of these
requests contained in the links in the email have been logged as new
requests as follows:

         

Previous Reference Your Request New Reference Number
Number
29-10-2012-155226-019 [1]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su... 16-11-2012-142647-006
26-09-2012-155714-006 [2]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/st... 16-11-2012-141635-005
26-09-2012-160038-007 [3]http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su... 15-11-2012-163420-011

 

The requests classed as ‘unassigned’ in your previous email are still
awaiting an initial response and as such have not been re-logged.

 

Your refinement would seem to indicate that you have accepted the
Department's decision to aggregate your requests under section 12(4) of
the Act. In view of this, do you wish me to complete the internal review
as requested on 26 October 2012?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

FOI Internal Review Team

References

Visible links
1. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...
2. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/st...
3. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/su...

[name removed April 2013]

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your reply. I would like if possible for the internal review to continue with the Freedom of information requests already started, (I have been a bit hasty in pre-empting the findings of the internal review assuming you would also group them). I would like the review team to consider if grouping the requests is appropriate please. It is my personal opinion that aggregating the requests is a deliberate attempt to refuse an answer, and hide misconduct. If you decide that aggregating is not appropriate then I would request that you continue with the review and ignore the annotation on 09 November 2012.
If it is the finding of the review team that grouping is appropriate, then could the review team please only work on the Freedom of Information Requests that I have listed on 09 November 2012, and if refused under section 12 could the cost of complying with each one please be provided so I can make a decision of which to take to the information commissioner. (I will quite happily wait 60 days and resubmit requests if required.)
The purpose of removing some of the requests is because I am only especially concerned with my case, and I will leave the various other problems of the Armed Forces Justice system to Ms Mowday, and others.

Yours sincerely,

[first name of requester removed] [last name of requester removed]

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr [last name of requester removed],

 

Please find attached the response to your requests for an internal review
under the Freedom of Information Act. The review refers to a number of
cases, referenced 29-08-2012-124804-002, 18-09-2012-150855-009,
26-09-2012-155714-006, 26-09-2012-160038-007, 09-10-2012-105028-005,
17-10-2012-121246-003, and 29-10-2012-155226-019.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Internal Review Team

 

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org