Northumbria Police Corruption - Mr Gatenby case, substantial damages against Northumbria Police ... -

Martin McGartland made this Freedom of Information request to Northumbria Police This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was refused by Northumbria Police.

Martin McGartland

Dear Northumbria Police,

My request relates to following case, "HJA client receives substantial damages against Northumbria Police" - http://www.hja.net/legal-news/hja-news/h... The full text is attached below.

1. I am requesting information concerning; "The police dog handler gave a false account of the incident saying that Mr Gatenby had threateningly approached the officer and this caused the dog to bite. However CCTV footage showed that Mr Gatenby was facing away from the police officer at all times. This supported our client’s account that he had been the victim of an unprovoked attack." What action has been taken, if any, against the officer/s involved? Please supply full details .

2. I am also requesting information concerning following: "Initially police denied the existence of the CCTV footage but it was eventually disclosed and Mr Gatenby was acquitted in the Magistrate’s Court with the Magistrate showing scepticism towards the police officers’ evidence and also noting that Mr Gatenby was neither drunk nor disorderly." What action, if any, has been taken against the officers who deliberately concealed and covered-up the CCTV footage? Please explain why NP were denying they held the footage and why they later discolsed it.

3. Mr Gatenby’s Solicitor has stated that; “It is only Mr Gatenby’s determination that has brought this police misconduct to light. It is essential that the public can rely on the word of the police but cases like this show that this assumption cannot be taken for granted. It was an horrendous experience for Mr Gatenby being attacked but this paled into insignificance compared to what the police did in response to this. Instead of taking responsibility for what happened the police sought to shift blame from themselves onto Mr Gatenby, an innocent man. The complaint investigation and Independent Police Complaints appeal investigation failed to uncover the truth and it is only through the civil courts that Mr Gatenby has achieved justice – at great cost to the tax payer. Although his case has settled Mr Gatenby is pursuing the matter with the IPCC chair and with his MP in a laudable attempt to ensure that lessons are learnt”. Under FOIA please supply me with details of the full cost, of this case, to the taxpayer. Please include all legal costs and also damages and other compensation.

4. Under FOIA please supply details of what involvement, if any, your Professional Standards Department had in this case.

5. "Our client, disappointed at the clearly inaccurate findings of the IPCC report, issued a claim against Northumbria Police which was defended by them until a couple of weeks before the trial, when they agreed to pay him significant damages and issue an apology."

Under FOIA please supply me with a copy of the Northumbria Police apology and or the full wording of it.

Regards

Martin McGartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk
---------------------------------------------------

HJA client receives substantial damages against Northumbria Police

16th October 2012

A Hodge Jones & Allen LLP client has settled his claim against Northumbria police force following a mediation shortly before trial. The police have paid substantial damages and apologised for the incident.

Our client was passing by a pub in Washington Tyne and Wear at about 7.45pm on 26 December 2007 when he noticed an altercation outside the pub. He stopped to observe. Suddenly and without warning he was pulled to the ground by a police officer and bitten on the arm by a police dog. The bite required multiple stitches.

Despite being in urgent need of medical attention, Mr Gatenby was given no assistance and when he tried to complain he was arrested for being “drunk and disorderly”.

The police dog handler gave a false account of the incident saying that Mr Gatenby had threateningly approached the officer and this caused the dog to bite. However CCTV footage showed that Mr Gatenby was facing away from the police officer at all times. This supported our client’s account that he had been the victim of an unprovoked attack.

Matters were made worse when the police prosecuted our client. Various officers gave evidence that Mr Gatenby was very aggressive and drunk. However CCTV footage in the custody suite supported Mr Gatenby’s version of events and showed officers laughing about the dog bite.

Initially police denied the existence of the CCTV footage but it was eventually disclosed and Mr Gatenby was acquitted in the Magistrate’s Court with the Magistrate showing scepticism towards the police officers’ evidence and also noting that Mr Gatenby was neither drunk nor disorderly.

Despite CCTV evidence and statements from independent witnesses which backed up Mr Gatenby’s case his police complaint was not upheld. He appealed the decision to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but extraordinarily they did not uphold the appeal.

The IPCC report found that the complaint was unsubstantiated and made no comment on apparent discrepancies between the officers’ accounts and the CCTV evidence. The report did not criticise the way the dog was being handled by the officer or uphold a complaint of assault, despite acknowledging that our client was blameless in the incident. The investigator also accepted the arresting officer’s account that he had been unaware of the dog bite when he arrested Mr Gatenby – despite evidence showing that Mr Gatenby was trying to bring this to the attention of the police. The IPCC did not properly consider whether the police officers had a motive to withhold the CCTV evidence, instead relying on the police explanation that this was due to an oversight.

Our client, disappointed at the clearly inaccurate findings of the IPCC report, issued a claim against Northumbria Police which was defended by them until a couple of weeks before the trial, when they agreed to pay him significant damages and issue an apology.

On settling the case Mr Gatenby said: “This has gone on for 5 years – during which my family have been put through hell. The police dog handler should have apologised at the time and sent me to hospital. This could have avoided all this stress and expense. The prosecution was devastating not only because it was a terrifying process but also because it caused me to lose all the respect I had for the police. They showed themselves prepared to lie to get me convicted. It felt very personal. Then when my complaint was refused and the IPCC appeal turned down, this made matters worse. It felt like no body wanted to get to the truth. I would not let the matter drop and eventually the police have admitted they were in the wrong.”

Mr Gatenby has been invited to a meeting with the new IPCC Chair, Dame Anne Owers, to discuss his concerns about the police conduct and the apparent lack of independent scrutiny by the IPCC.

Jocelyn CockburnJocelyn Cockburn, Civil Liberties partner at Hodge Jones & Allen comments: “It is only Mr Gatenby’s determination that has brought this police misconduct to light. It is essential that the public can rely on the word of the police but cases like this show that this assumption cannot be taken for granted. It was an horrendous experience for Mr Gatenby being attacked but this paled into insignificance compared to what the police did in response to this. Instead of taking responsibility for what happened the police sought to shift blame from themselves onto Mr Gatenby, an innocent man. The complaint investigation and Independent Police Complaints appeal investigation failed to uncover the truth and it is only through the civil courts that Mr Gatenby has achieved justice – at great cost to the tax payer. Although his case has settled Mr Gatenby is pursuing the matter with the IPCC chair and with his MP in a laudable attempt to ensure that lessons are learnt”.

http://www.hja.net/legal-news/hja-news/h...

Northumbria Police

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)

Thank you for your email received today in which you make a request for
information that Northumbria Police may hold.

We are in the process of dealing with your request and expect to revert to
you shortly.  A response should be provided by 15 November 2012.

Yours sincerely

Helen Robbins

Disclosure Section
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is
confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation
or individual to whom it is addressed.  The message may contain
information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege.  No
mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such
privilege.  This message has been sent over public networks and the sender
cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information
contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions
of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection
Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically
stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a
result of software viruses.  It is your responsibility to carry out such
virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website -
[1]http://www.northumbria.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/

Northumbria Police

3 Attachments

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your email dated 17 October 2012 in which you provide
clarification of a request for access to certain information which may be
held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police),
subject to certain limitations and exemptions.
 
You asked:

My request relates to following case, "HJA client receives substantial
damages against Northumbria Police" -
[1]http://www.hja.net/legal-news/hja-news/h...

1.        I am requesting information concerning; "The police dog handler
gave a false account of the incident saying that Mr Gatenby had
threateningly approached the officer and this caused the dog to bite.
However CCTV footage showed that Mr Gatenby was facing away from the
police officer at all times. This supported our client’s account that he
had been the victim of an unprovoked attack."
        What action has been taken, if any, against the officer/s
involved? Please supply full details .

2.        I am also requesting information concerning following:
"Initially police denied the existence of the CCTV footage but it was
eventually disclosed and Mr Gatenby was acquitted in the Magistrate’s
Court with the Magistrate showing scepticism towards the police officers’
evidence and also noting that Mr Gatenby was neither drunk nor
disorderly."
        What action, if any, has been taken against the officers who
deliberately concealed and covered-up the CCTV footage? Please explain why
NP were denying they held the footage and why they later discolsed it.

3.        Mr Gatenby’s Solicitor has stated that; "It is only Mr Gatenby’s
determination that has brought this police misconduct to light. It is
essential that the public can rely on the word of the police but cases
like this show that this assumption cannot be taken for granted. It was an
horrendous experience for Mr Gatenby being attacked but this paled into
insignificance compared to what the police did in response to this.
Instead of taking responsibility for what happened the police sought to
shift blame from themselves onto Mr Gatenby, an innocent man. The
complaint investigation and Independent Police Complaints appeal
investigation failed to uncover the truth and it is only through the civil
courts that Mr Gatenby has achieved justice – at great cost to the tax
payer. Although his case has settled Mr Gatenby is pursuing the matter
with the IPCC chair and with his MP in a laudable attempt to ensure that
lessons are learnt".
        Under FOIA please supply me with details of the full cost, of this
case, to the taxpayer. Please include all legal costs and also damages and
other compensation.

4.        Under FOIA please supply details of what involvement, if any,
your Professional Standards Department had in this case.

5.        "Our client, disappointed at the clearly inaccurate findings of
the IPCC report, issued a claim against Northumbria Police which was
defended by them until a couple of weeks before the trial, when they
agreed to pay him significant damages and issue an apology."
        Under FOIA please supply me with a copy of the Northumbria Police
apology and or the full wording of it.

In response:

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

Please note, as per the above, this department has only addressed the
questions submitted and offers no comment on the statements you attached
to your initial request.

Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with both the
Professional Standards and Legal Departments of Northumbria Police.  I can
confirm that the information you have requested is held, in part, by
Northumbria Police.

I have decided to disclose the located information to you as follows.

1.        As a response to this part of your request is accessible by
other means I have not provided you with a copy of this information and
will rely on Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  You
should therefore consider this a refusal for your request.

        I have provided an explanation to this exemption below.

        Section 21 (1) - Information accessible by other means

        Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant is
exempt information.

        This question has been asked under FOIA previously and is
published via the Disclosure Log on the Northumbria Police website, FOI
788/12 refers.  In order to assist you further I have provided the
relevant link below.

        http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...

2.        Northumbria Police neither confirms nor denies (NCND) that it
holds any of the information requested at this part of your request by
virtue of the following exemption:-

        Section 40(5) - Personal Information

        Section 40(5) is a class based absolute exemption and as such
legislators have identified that there would be harm in disclosure and
there is no requirement to evidence this or consider the public interest
test.  However, as Section 40 is engaged and in order to make the
exemption absolute we need to evidence that a data protection principle
would be breached by disclosure. In this case it would not be fair to
process information which could lead to the identification of an
individual, therefore the first principle of the Data Protection Act would
be breached.

        You should consider this to be a refusal under Section 17 of the
Act for this part of your request.

3.        No information is held on the full cost of this case.  The time
taken on an enquiry such as this, forms part of the working hours of a
number of officers and staff.  This is not costed, recorded or collated
separately.

4.        Where complaints are received, the Professional Standards
Department, as they did in this case, conduct full investigations into the
actions taken by Police Officers.

5.        Any letters sent by Northumbria Police Officers to members of
the public would be classed as personal data and therefore exempt from
disclosure under Section 40 of the Act.  However, on this occasion, a
response to this part of your request is accessible by other means and I
am able to rely upon Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  

        I have provided an explanation to this exemption below.

        Section 21 (1) - Information accessible by other means

        Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant is
exempt information.

        It has been brought to our attention that this information has
previously been printed by the Evening Chronicle and can be accessed via
that organisation.

        As a goodwill gesture I have attached a copy of the relevant page
from the newspaper below as well as the wording of the document itself.

               

You may be interested to know that Northumbria Police routinely publish
information that has been disclosed by Northumbria Police in response to
requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 via the Disclosure
Log.  The aim of the Disclosure Log is to promote openness and
transparency by voluntarily placing information into the public arena.

Whilst it is not possible to publish all responses we will endeavour to
publish those where we feel that the information disclosed is in the
public interest.  The Disclosure Log will be updated once responses have
been sent to the requester.  I have provided the relevant link below:-

[2]http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...

The information we have supplied to you is likely to contain intellectual
property rights of Northumbria Police.  Your use of the information must
be strictly in accordance with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988
(as amended) or such other applicable legislation.  In particular, you
must not re-use this information for any commercial purpose.

How to complain

If you are unhappy with our decision or do not consider that we have
handled your request properly and we are unable to resolve this issue
informally, you are entitled to make a formal complaint to us under our
complaints procedure which is attached.

If you are still unhappy after we have investigated your complaint and
reported to you the outcome, you may complain directly to the Information
Commissioner’s Office and request that they investigate to ascertain
whether we have dealt with your request in accordance with the Act.

Yours sincerely

Michael Cleugh
Data Protection and Disclosure Advisor
Direct Dial:  0191 2956941
[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is
confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation
or individual to whom it is addressed.  The message may contain
information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege.  No
mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such
privilege.  This message has been sent over public networks and the sender
cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information
contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions
of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection
Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically
stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a
result of software viruses.  It is your responsibility to carry out such
virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by
e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website -
[3]http://www.northumbria.police.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.hja.net/legal-news/hja-news/h...
2. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...
3. http://www.northumbria.police.uk/

Dear Northumbria Police,

This is a request for an Internal review on the grounds that NP have once again failed to deal correctly (and within the law) with this request.

I am requesting an Internal review of the entire request, however, also on the grounds that;

(a) You have failed to supply the information I requested concerning what involvement the PSD has had in this case.

(b) You are claiming that documents can not be disclosed because they contain personal information, however, you are aware that such information can be released in redacted form.

(c) You claim that you do not hold details of the total amounts of case, however, I do not accept this, NP will have to account for public monies and should hold such information. NP should now release such details including amounts spent on this case. This part of my request has not been dealt with correctly.

(d) You have also refused to sully me with reply to parts of my request by claiming that the requested information is already available, you included a like (which I checked) but could not find the requested information. I do not believe the requested is already available, but if it is you are making it very difficult for me to find it. Given above this part of my request has still not been dealt with correctly. I am also requesting your help (under FOIA) to find such information.

As above I want my entire request to be reviewed, not just above a to d) as you have not dealt with many other parts of my request correctly nor within the

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

Northumbria Police

We assume that you are referring to the above case and relevant ref.
number, if not please advise by return.

We acknowledge receipt of your request for an internal review of the
response you received in relation to the above mentioned Freedom Of
Information request.

We aim to provide a response to you within 20 working days of this
acknowledgement.

Yours sincerely

Jan Mcewan

Disclosure Section

NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk

Northumbria Police

2 Attachments

Provision of information held by Northumbria Police made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (the 'Act')

Thank you for your email dated 29 November 2012 in which you requested a
review of the response to your request for access to certain information
which may be held by Northumbria Police.

As you may be aware the purpose of the Act is to allow a general right of
access to information held by a Public Authority (including the Police),
subject to certain limitations and exemptions.

You asked:

My request relates to following case, "HJA client receives substantial
damages against Northumbria Police" -
http://www.hja.net/legal-news/hja-news/h...

1. I am requesting information concerning; "The police dog handler gave
a false account of the incident saying that Mr Gatenby had
threateningly approached the officer and this caused the dog to bite.
However CCTV footage showed that Mr Gatenby was facing away from the
police officer at all times. This supported our client’s account that
he had been the victim of an unprovoked attack."
What action has been taken, if any, against the officer/s involved?
Please supply full details .

2. I am also requesting information concerning following: "Initially
police denied the existence of the CCTV footage but it was eventually
disclosed and Mr Gatenby was acquitted in the Magistrate’s Court with
the Magistrate showing scepticism towards the police officers’
evidence and also noting that Mr Gatenby was neither drunk nor
disorderly."
What action, if any, has been taken against the officers who
deliberately concealed and covered-up the CCTV footage? Please
explain why NP were denying they held the footage and why they later
discolsed it.

3. Mr Gatenby’s Solicitor has stated that; "It is only Mr Gatenby’s
determination that has brought this police misconduct to light. It is
essential that the public can rely on the word of the police but
cases like this show that this assumption cannot be taken for
granted. It was an horrendous experience for Mr Gatenby being
attacked but this paled into insignificance compared to what the
police did in response to this. Instead of taking responsibility for
what happened the police sought to shift blame from themselves onto
Mr Gatenby, an innocent man. The complaint investigation and
Independent Police Complaints appeal investigation failed to uncover
the truth and it is only through the civil courts that Mr Gatenby has
achieved justice – at great cost to the tax payer. Although his case
has settled Mr Gatenby is pursuing the matter with the IPCC chair and
with his MP in a laudable attempt to ensure that lessons are learnt".
Under FOIA please supply me with details of the full cost, of this
case, to the taxpayer. Please include all legal costs and also
damages and other compensation.

4. Under FOIA please supply details of what involvement, if any, your
Professional Standards Department had in this case.

5. "Our client, disappointed at the clearly inaccurate findings of the
IPCC report, issued a claim against Northumbria Police which was
defended by them until a couple of weeks before the trial, when they
agreed to pay him significant damages and issue an apology."
Under FOIA please supply me with a copy of the Northumbria Police
apology and or the full wording of it.

Our response stated:

We have now had the opportunity to fully consider your request and I
provide a response for your attention.

Please note, as per the above, this department has only addressed the
questions submitted and offers no comment on the statements you attached
to your initial request.

Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted with both the
Professional Standards and Legal Departments of Northumbria Police. I
can confirm that the information you have requested is held, in part, by
Northumbria Police.

I have decided to disclose the located information to you as follows.

1. As a response to this part of your request is accessible by other
means I have not provided you with a copy of this information and
will rely on Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You
should therefore consider this a refusal for your request.

I have provided an explanation to this exemption below.

Section 21 (1) - Information accessible by other means

Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant is exempt
information.

This question has been asked under FOIA previously and is published
via the Disclosure Log on the Northumbria Police website, FOI 788/12
refers. In order to assist you further I have provided the relevant
link below.

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...

2. Northumbria Police neither confirms nor denies (NCND) that it holds
any of the information requested at this part of your request by
virtue of the following exemption:-

Section 40(5) - Personal Information

Section 40(5) is a class based absolute exemption and as such
legislators have identified that there would be harm in disclosure
and there is no requirement to evidence this or consider the public
interest test. However, as Section 40 is engaged and in order to
make the exemption absolute we need to evidence that a data
protection principle would be breached by disclosure. In this case it
would not be fair to process information which could lead to the
identification of an individual, therefore the first principle of the
Data Protection Act would be breached.

You should consider this to be a refusal under Section 17 of the Act
for this part of your request.

3. No information is held on the full cost of this case. The time taken
on an enquiry such as this, forms part of the working hours of a
number of officers and staff. This is not costed, recorded or
collated separately.

4. Where complaints are received, the Professional Standards Department,
as they did in this case, conduct full investigations into the
actions taken by Police Officers.

5. Any letters sent by Northumbria Police Officers to members of the
public would be classed as personal data and therefore exempt from
disclosure under Section 40 of the Act. However, on this occasion, a
response to this part of your request is accessible by other means
and I am able to rely upon Section 21 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000.

I have provided an explanation to this exemption below.

Section 21 (1) - Information accessible by other means

Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant is exempt
information.

It has been brought to our attention that this information has
previously been printed by the Evening Chronicle and can be accessed
via that organisation.

As a goodwill gesture I have attached a copy of the relevant page
from the newspaper below as well as the wording of the document
itself.

(See attached file: FOI 806-12 Copy of Article.pdf) (See attached
file: FOI 806-12 Copy of Apology.pdf)

You may be interested to know that Northumbria Police routinely publish
information that has been disclosed by Northumbria Police in response to
requests made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 via the Disclosure
Log. The aim of the Disclosure Log is to promote openness and transparency
by voluntarily placing information into the public arena.

Whilst it is not possible to publish all responses we will endeavour to
publish those where we feel that the information disclosed is in the public
interest. The Disclosure Log will be updated once responses have been sent
to the requester. I have provided the relevant link below:-

http://www.northumbria.police.uk/foi/dis...

Your request for review asked:

Dear Northumbria Police,

This is a request for an Internal review on the grounds that NP have once
again failed to deal correctly (and within the law) with this request.

I am requesting an Internal review of the entire request, however, also on
the grounds that;

(a) You have failed to supply the information I requested concerning what
involvement the PSD has had in this case.

(b) You are claiming that documents can not be disclosed because they
contain personal information, however, you are aware that such information
can be released in redacted form.

(c) You claim that you do not hold details of the total amounts of case,
however, I do not accept this, NP will have to account for public monies
and should hold such information. NP should now release such details
including amounts spent on this case. This part of my request has not been
dealt with correctly.

(d) You have also refused to sully me with reply to parts of my request by
claiming that the requested information is already available, you included
a like (which I checked) but could not find the requested information. I do
not believe the requested is already available, but if it is you are making
it very difficult for me to find it. Given above this part of my request
has still not been dealt with correctly. I am also requesting your help
(under FOIA) to find such information.

As above I want my entire request to be reviewed, not just above a to d) as
you have not dealt with many other parts of my request correctly nor within
the

Yours faithfully,

Martin McGartland

www.martinmcgartland.co.uk

In response:

I will address each of your points above in turn.

a) We advised you in our response to Q4 that "Where complaints are
received, the Professional Standards Department, as they did in this
case, conduct full investigations into the actions taken by Police
Officers." This clearly advised you what involvement PSD had in this
case i.e. the Professional Standards Department conducted a full
investigation.

b) Our response to Q2 was exempt due to S40 Personal Information. You did
not request copies of documents redacted or otherwise. You asked "What
action, if any, has been taken against the officers who deliberately
concealed and covered-up the CCTV footage? Please explain why NP were
denying they held the footage and why they later discolsed it." In this
case the exemption has been applied. You have also previously been
advised that we are under no obligation under FOI to provide copies of
any documents, we are only required to provide the information those
documents contain. This of course is always subject to any applicable
exemptions.

c) We advised you in our response to Q3 that "No information is held on
the full cost of this case. The time taken on an enquiry such as this,
forms part of the working hours of a number of officers and staff. This
is not costed, recorded or collated separately." As you had requested
".... the full cost". The response on this point was clear and fully
explained why the exemption had been applied. It is a fact that police
officers do not use a system whereby it would be possible to equate a
monetay value to the amount of time spent working on a particular case
as each case is not costed separately.

d) We have not refused to supply you with the information requested in Q's
1 and 4, nor are we "making it difficult".

Q1 - As this information is available by other means the relevant
exemption has been applied. You were provided with the link (which when
checked, is working) to the Northumbria Police Website Disclosure Log.
You were also supplied with the relevant FOI reference number to conduct
your search of the Disclosure Log. I suggest you enter the number
provided into the 'Free Text' search box. This will provide you with a
link to the relevant response. This review has tested this process and
can confirm that it is in full working order.

Q4 - as advised in our original response "It has been brought to our
attention that this information has previously been printed by the
Evening Chronicle and can be accessed via that organisation." If a copy
of this cannot be located on-line may I suggest you contact the relevant
newspaper to ascertain where or how you may go about obtaining a copy.
However, we did assist you by supplying you with an actual copy of the
article which appeared in the Evening Chronicle and also a copy of the
apology wording, as requested. Therefore we have fulfilled our
obligations under the FOIA.

This concludes my internal review into your request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000. I believe that Northumbria Police have fulfilled our
requirements as per your Freedom of Information request. If you remain
dissatisfied with the outcome of this review then it remains open to you to
refer this matter to the Information Commissioner at the following address:

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

Yours sincerely

Hayley Morrison
Disclosure Manager
Legal Department
Northumbria Police
Direct Dial: 0191 2956940
Email: [email address]

[NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]
NORTHUMBRIA POLICE PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

The information contained in this message and any attachment(s) is confidential and intended only for the attention of the named organisation or individual to whom it is addressed. The message may contain information that is covered by legal, professional or other privilege. No mistake in transmission is intended to waive or compromise any such privilege. This message has been sent over public networks and the sender cannot be held responsible for its integrity.

If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken in reliance of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited, and is contrary to the provisions of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act, 1988 and of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

Any views expressed are those of the sender and, unless specifically stated, do not necessarily represent the view of Northumbria Police.

We cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage sustained as a result of software viruses. It is your responsibility to carry out such virus checking as is necessary.

If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by e-mail at once and delete the message immediately.

For more information about Northumbria Police please visit our website - http://www.northumbria.police.uk