Dear Northumbria Police,
There have been rumours and gossip around the North East since 2007 concerning an incident which it is alleged occurred at the home of former Chief Constable Mike Craik in late June 2007. The stance of Northumbria Police has consistently been to deny that any incident had taken place, that no armed response unit had attended and that there had not been any record of an incident on the Force-wide computerised log.
In 2012, as part of Operation Elveden, the Metropolitan Police asked Northumbria Police to investigate whether payments may have been made by journalists of the News of the World to Police Officers in connection with an incident which was alleged to have occurred at the home of former Chief Constable Mike Craik on or around Saturday 23rd June 2007.
The investigation was headed by Superintendent Alan Veitch (Head of Professional Standards until 2013). In May 2016, at an Employment Tribunal whilst under oath, Superintendent Dave Byrne (Head of Professional Standards from 2013-2016) stated that the investigation was still open within Professional Standards Department.
At the Employment Tribunal, a Witness Statement submitted by former Inspector Paul Gilroy stated

“I can confirm that at 0740hrs on Saturday 23rd June 2007 I commenced duty as
operations inspector at Northumberland Area Command. This saw me assume
force wide responsibility for the operational support resources which include dog
section officers, area support groups and armed response vehicles with specialist
supervision for motor patrols.” and

“During that afternoon, I received information from the force communication room
supervisor that officers had been deployed at the home of the then Chief
Constable residing in the Bamburgh area of Northumberland. This followed the
activation of the personal attack alarm” and

“Before terminating duty at 1600hrs having not had any updates I viewed the
computer generated log for the incident only to find that all the text subject of it
had been deleted. After having spoken to officers dispatched to the incident it became apparent to me why the log had been deleted. The incident had apparently involved an altercation between the Chief and Mr Peacock.” and

“At 0830hrs on Monday 25th June 2007 I attended a supervision meeting at Bedlington police station, this being a routine event to discuss and analyse the events of the previous weekend or 24 hours. I recall that at the conclusion of the meeting I was instructed to remain behind to discuss the incident with the Chief that had taken place over the weekend. By this stage it appeared there had been a leak to the media. Again as I best recall I was instructed to make enquiries with officers who had attended the personal incident in an effort to establish who may have done so. At no time then or since have I made any such enquiries.”
Other witnesses at the Employment Tribunal stated that
a) it was common knowledge across the Force that an armed response unit had been called to Chief Craik’s house; and
b) the Police Log of the incident was viewed by many Officers at different Police Stations across the region during the day; and
c) by late afternoon, the text of the Police Log of the incident had been removed from the computer system; and
d) staff and Officers had been instructed that the incident had NOT happened; and
e) disciplinary action would take place if anybody attempted to search for the Police Log; and
f) Police Officers were directed that anybody who defaced a picture of Chief Craik in a Police station (e.g. by drawing a ‘black eye’ on his face) would be subject to criminal prosecution.
After the Employment Tribunal, Chief Constable Ashman made a Press Statement saying that
“As the head of a police force and public body I am duty bound to consider the information presented to the tribunal. Any allegations that may have arisen during the course of the evidence or the way in which it was presented, particularly those considered criminal in nature will be considered in full.”
See http://www.northumbria.police.uk/your_ne...

Questions
1. In 2012, The Metropolitan Police, during Operation Elveden, requested Northumbria to investigate allegations of payments between journalists and Officers connected to the incident between Mr Craik and Mr Peacock. Alan Veitch (then Head of PSD) began an investigation, reporting to Deputy Chief Constable Gilmore. In the transcript of his evidence to a Disciplinary Hearing in April 2014, Superintendent Veitch said
“I wrote a report for the Deputy around what I’d found, and obviously there were gaps in that investigation, because if we’d gone to the former duty officer on that night, who was a former chief super and retired, there may have been some information – don’t go there. I could have gone to the Elveden SIO and said do you want me to do more? Don’t go there. And I could have pushed the fact a bit further with the reporters, but again, that’s likely to lift a stone and it wasn’t a particularly pleasant thing for us to do or consider. So none of that was done and I reported accordingly.”
A) Is Superintendent Veitch still a serving officer with Northumbria Police?
B) Is the Investigation started by Superintendent Veitch in to the alleged incident in Bamburgh on or around 23rd June 2007 June 2007 still open – FIVE years after being started?
C) If the Investigation is still OPEN (as stated by Superintendent Byrne during an Employment Tribunal) then please explain why it has not been closed and who is the Officer currently leading the Investigation;
D) If the Investigation is CLOSED then when was it closed? What were the findings of the Investigation and what actions have been taken as a result of the investigation?

2. As described in Inspector Gilroy’s Statement above,
A) was there an incident at the home of Former-Chief Constable Mike Craik in Bamburgh on or around Saturday 23rd June 2007 to which Police Officers were dispatched?
B) Was an Armed Response Unit despatched?
C) Were other Officers also in attendance?
D) Was a Police Helicopter also diverted to fly towards the Bamburgh area during that day?
E) Was a computer record created on the computerised force-wide Police Log system concerning the incident at the home of Chief Constable Craik?
F) Does such a computerised record still exist? (or a paper copy of it?)

G) Re there references to an incident in Bamburgh area on 23rd June 2007 which required the attendance of armed police officers in any of the following
i) the Force Communication Room log,
ii) the Silver Command log;
iii) Radio traffic logs;
iv) Emergency Services (‘999’ service) log (one rumour says that the incident was phoned in by a neighbour, other rumours say that a ‘panic button’ initiated the call-out);
v) Police Helicopter or Air Traffic logs;
vi) The Log Books of any Police Officer who may have attended the incident

H) Has the ‘Force communications room supervisor’ who was on duty at the time been identified and interviewed?

3. Was the text within the computer record erased or was the computer record deleted from the Police Log?
Who (i.e. what level of seniority) would have authority to do so?
Was this authority given and is there a log of this action being taken?

4. During the days after the alleged Incident, were instructions given to officers throughout the region that they should not search the computer system to locate the record?
Were any disciplinary actions taken against any officers or staff who may have searched for details of the incident within the Police computer system?

5. In the days following the alleged incident, were posters of Chief Craik defaced in any Police Station? Were orders given to Officers across the region that any further de-facing would result in disciplinary or criminal damage proceedings? Were any Officers disciplined as a result of such de-facing of Police posters?

6. Following Chief Craik’s assurance that the incident had not happened, was public money spent to obtain external legal advice on how to apply the laws of Libel to prevent newspapers from reporting any stories concerning the alleged incident?

7. Were any stories published in the media about the alleged incident? If so, where and when?

8. At a Preliminary Hearing in April 2015, Northumbria Police were ordered to release the full paper-based file of the Craik/Peacock incident which had been created by Ms Aubrey. However, Ms Aubrey reported to a further Preliminary Hearing in July 2015 that that the file which had been disclosed had been heavily decimated. In August 2015, an Employment Judge ordered that Affidavits be prepared by the joint Investigating Officers (Superintendent Byrne and Head of HR, Mrs Joscelin Lawson) to explain how the file had been controlled after Ms Aubrey had been suspended and instructed that the complete paper-based file be disclosed. Despite a very clear description by Ms Aubrey of the size, shape and colour of the outside binder containing the files, one Affidavit stated

“I am informed there is a store room containing the Chief Officer Team records. Quite literally there are hundreds of boxes of material in that store room. The boxes are unmarked and there is no record of their contents. The boxes would have to be checked on an individual basis to ascertain their contents. Simply to check the boxes to see what they contain would take an individual officer literally days of search. It may or may not contain V and C documents. I do not know. Unless expressly ordered to do so, I do not believe it would be proportionate to undertake a search of those boxes simply to see if some documents might be found in them.

Given that the Force has spent around £600,000 on external legal advice concerning the Employment Tribunal process plus enormous amounts of Police Officer/Staff time predicated around an allegation that Ms Aubrey breached the confidentiality of Chief Constable Craik in this matter, has there been a thorough search of the Archive Store to locate this file during the past two years? If so, has the comlete file been disclosed, as ordered by the Employment Tribunal?

9. Inspector Veitch’s first Witness Statement to the Disciplinary Hearing was significantly altered with the removal of sentences which described how widespread the gossip was about the Incident involving Craik/Peacock, for example,
“There was much rumour and speculation within the force at the time, surrounding Mr Craik's alleged relationship with a female colleague which seemed to be the story the press had become aware of”
being deleted and sentences which a denigrated local journalist being added.

A) Who requested such material changes to a Witness Statement and
B) Why were sentences which might undermine Northumbria Police’s claim that the Craik/Peacock matter was highly confidential (hence not widely known) removed from the Superintendent Veitch’s Witness Statement?

10. A) Prior and during the Employment Tribunal in May 2016, did Northumbria Police pay for legal advice to be provided to any of the Craiks or Peacocks?
B) Did Northumbria Police staff (Superintendent Peter Dent and colleagues) provide assistance to either the Craiks or Peacocks in writing any Statements which were then released to the Tribunal or to the Press?

11. The allegations concerning the removal of an Incident from the Police Log and the expenditure of police time and public monies on legal advice to prevent the Press from reporting the incident are surely examples of serious Misconduct in Public Office by Officers or former Officers of Northumbria Police. Such allegations, if true, would certainly be “considered criminal in nature” and Chief Constable Ashman would certainly be “duty bound” to investigate – or to report the matter to an independent body, such as the IPCC, for investigation.

A) What actions has Chief Constable Ashman taken during the past twelve months since he made his Press Statement in August 2016 to investigate these allegations or to report them for an independent investigation?
B) Have ANY of the people who provided witness statements to the Employment Tribunal in May 2016 been contacted by Northumbria Police to provide any Investigation with more information?

Yours faithfully,
Mr Paul Hopkins

Dear Freedom of Information Mailbox,
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Overdue response to an FOI request – “The Incident that Never Happened”

On 14th August 2017, I submitted a Freedom of Information Request to Northumbria Police (see attached) in which I was asking for information concerning an incident which is alleged to have occurred at the home of former Chief Constable Craik in June 2007. My FOI was promptly acknowledged
Thank you for your email received today in which you make a request for information that Northumbria Police may hold in accordance with the Freedom Of Information Act 2000
We are in the process of dealing with your request and a response should be provided to you by 12/09/17 which is in accordance with the legislation.
Yours sincerely
Jan Mcewan
Information Management Unit

As of today, I have not received any response. I am disappointed for the following reasons:-
1. IF AN INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED THEN
a) There are several issues which may represent MISCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE (a Criminal Offence) by various Officers, including
• Deletion not just of the text of an Incident Log (- potentially valid if there is information which should be redacted) but the entire Record of the incident was removed from the force-wide incident (Police Log) system;
• Significant Public Money was spent to obtain leading London Counsel advice of how to threaten newspapers with libel actions if they dared to publish anything about the story;
• Amending Superintendent’s original Witness Statement

b) MISCONDUCT - OR EXCEEDINGLY POOR STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOUR
• Using Public Money on 2016 to fund the legal costs of Mr Craik and Mrs Peacock in their application for Reporting Restrictions to be imposed upon the Press;
• Failing to properly investigate the Craik/Peacock incident when formally requested to do so by the Metropolitan Police Operation Elveden team in 2012;
• Failure to execute a search of the Headquarter’s Archive Storeroom to locate the undecimated paper file of the Craik/Peacock case – despite being ordered to do so by an Employment Judge
• Using significant amounts of Police time and money over many years to mount a cover-up to prevent any Police Officer or staff discuss the Incident
• Failure by Chief Constable Ashman to follow through with his public statement in August 2016 in which he declared that he was “duty bound” to investigate “Any allegations that may have arisen during the course of the evidence or the way in which it was presented, particularly those considered criminal in nature will be considered in full.”

2. IF AN INCIDENT HAD NOT OCCURRED THEN it is in the public interest to clarify this. However, it would then be extremely embarrassing for Northumbria Police if people were to come forward who
• Were first-hand witnesses of that incident – either by attending the scene or by being involved directly in activities related to the management of the incident;
• Witnesses who were on duty (or attending a police station) at the time of the incident who can recall the incident occurring and/or claim to have viewed the Incident Log record before it was removed; and
• Officers who were directly briefed at the time (or within days) about the incident
Given that Detective Superintendent Byrne (former Head of Professional Standards Department) stated on oath at an Employment Tribunal in May 2016 that the Operation Elveden case, which had commenced in 2012 “was still not closed” in 2016, I would be astonished if Northumbria Police cannot answer the simple question as to whether an incident had occurred at the home of Chief Craik in June 2007 which had necessitated the summoning of an Armed Response Unit to attend.

I look forward to receiving a complete response to my Freedom of Information Request forthwith.
Yours sincerely,

Paul Hopkins

Dear Freedom of Information Mailbox,
I am very disappointed that NP have refused to answer ANY of the questions which I have asked on the grounds that it would take more than 18 hours of time. I am also concerned that you suggest that my query may be ‘vexatious’.
I assure you that I am simply seeking clarification about incidents which have been the subject of very significant media comment and which the public have a right to know whether the conduct of Police Officers has been consistent with their Attestation Oath and the standards which are expected of a Police Officer.
I very deliberately drafted my questions so that it would be easy for NP to answer them. There are
27 questions which have a straight Yes or No answers.
5 questions which require one word or a very short sentence as an answer
2 questions (9 & 11(a)) which require a short explanation
The vast majority of the questions should be quickly answered by consulting the PSD Case file (referred to directly in Question 1).
I have broken down every question to show the type of response required (see below).

am very concerned that NP’s refusal to answer ANY of these questions. Whilst there may be consequences which might depend upon certain answers, Northumbria Police cannot claim an exemption from the FOI process because their answers may be uncomfortable for them.

And I am certainly not being vexatious in asking them to answer questions which should easily be located in an Inquiry which has (probably) still be open since 2012.

Specifically, the questions and required responses are:
1 Operation Elveden request in 2012 to NP to investigate issues around the Incident
a) Y/N
b) Y/N
c) 1 sentence – (if Inquiry still open, who is leading?) (from the PSD file)
d) 1 sentence – date of Inquiry closure (from the PSD file)

2 Inspector Gilroy’s Witness Statement concerning the Incident
a) Y/N
b) Y/N
c) Y/N
d) Y/N
e) Y/N
f) Y/N
g i) Y/N
g ii) Y/N
g iii) Y/N
g iv) Y/N
g v) Y/N
g vi) Y/N

3 What happened to the computerised Police Log records
i)Y/N
ii) One sentence (Who has authority to delete Log records?)
ii) Y/N

4 Alleged warnings to Police Officers immediately after 23rd June 2007
i) Y/N
ii) Y/N

5 Were posters of CC Craik defaced in Police Station
i) Y/N
ii) Y/N
iii) Y/N

6. Were specialist libel lawyers engaged to squash any press reporting? Y/N

7. Were there any Press/Media reports at that time?
i) Y/N
ii) 1 sentence (where were stories published?)

8. Has there been a search of the Archive store for original document file, as ordered by Employment Judge in 2015?
i) Y/N
ii) Y/N

9. Query about who amended DS Veitch’s original Witness Statement – may require a conversation with DS Veitch (assuming he is still in NP)

10 Were police monies/resources spent on providing legal advice to Craik/Peacock in 2016?
a) Y/N
b) Y/N

11. CC Ashman made a Press Statement saying he was “I am duty bound” to investigate any allegations raised during the Employment Tribunal
a) A few sentences (What has he done?)
b) Number (How many witnesses from the Employment Tribunal been asked to assist?)

Yours sincerely,

Paul Hopkins

Dear Mr Cleugh,
I note your title and also respect that you have held your professional role within Northumbria Police for many years. I have taken your advice to look at the ICO website.
I would respectfully suggest that you should look at
https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...
to see how the ICO explain that this Act is based upon “Openness (which) is fundamental to the political health of a modern state “ and covers all “Recorded information includes printed documents, computer files, letters, emails, photographs, and sound or video recordings “.

It is particularly pertinent to note the highlighted quotation on their web-page
"Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making." - Your Right to Know

You will be aware that “an applicant (requester) does not need to give you a reason for wanting the information. On the contrary, you must justify refusing them information; “. Hence your inference that my request may “be a trigger for further investigations” is not relevant – and may not even be true. Your duty as a Public Servant, I believe, is to ensure that Northumbria Police obey the letter and the spirit of the Law and disclose the information which has been requested - rather than find reasons for refusing.

I believe that Northumbria Police opened an Investigation following a request from Operation Elveden in 2012. Your former Head of Professional Standards, Dave Byrne, said on Oath that was still open when he retired in 2016 and he used this as a reason for not being able to answer cross-examination questions on an “Open Inquiry”. I therefore have to assume that a diligent Investigation by Professional Standards detectives would have accumulated the answers to ALL of my questions – and much more beside.
My FOI was structured to simplify the workload of a professional Officer as most of the questions should be found within the case file documents.

I shall defer a decision on requesting an internal review because of
• Your failure to respond within the Statutory Time period, then
• your point blank refusal to answer ANY questions on the basis that answering them ALL might take more than 18 hours; then
• your suggestion today that my FOI is misguided; and now
• your invitation to request an internal NP review (which may take an unknown period of time)
Your actions all appear constructed to DELAY answering questions which are of significant public interest. I shall consult the Information Commissioner’s Office and ask THEM to review your refusal to answer ANY part of my Freedom of Information request

Yours sincerely,

Paul Hopkins

Dear Freedom of Information Mailbox,
Dear Mr Cleugh,

Can you atleast answer the following 3 questions
1. Did an incident occur on or around Saturday 23rd June 2007 (as recorded in Inspector Gilroy's Witness Statement) at the home of Chief Craik in Bamburgh and to which an Armed Response Unit was dispatched?

2. Was there a record on the Police Communications Log on 23rd June 2007 (as recorded in Inspector Gilroy's Witness Statement) which was subsequently deleted/erased?

3. Has Police manpower and financial resources been expended to prevent widespread discussion of this incident (assuming that it happened) in the Press and/or within the Force?

Given that there has been an Investigation opened by Professional Standards Department since 2012, I would hope that the above questions can be answered promptly.

Yours sincerely
Paul Hopkins

Yours sincerely,

Paul Hopkins

Dear Freedom of Information Mailbox,
I am NOT making a new FOI request. I understand that you should have answered my original FOI request (submitted on 14th August 2017) by 12th September.
On 13th September (one day AFTER you should have responded) you chose to refuse to answer ALL (or ANY) of my questions.
If the fundamental concepts of the FOI legislation is that "Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state" and "Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance in governance and defective decision-making" (Core principles in the 'Your Right to Know' Whitepaper which preceded the FOI Act) then I am merely asking you to respond to the just three of the questions which I posed on 14th August 2017 as an interim response.

You have had an Investigation in to this matter open in PSD since 2012 (FIVE YEARS!) and my simplified request is for you to answer
a) whether there was an incident on 23rd June 2007 in which an armed response unit was called to the home of Chief Craik in Bamburgh (as described in Inspector Gilroy's Statement);
b) whether there was a record in the Police Log which was subsequently erased/deleted; and
c) whether public monies and police time was expended in prevent members of the Press reporting such an incident.

I believe that these questions are of genuine public interest. The approach of Northumbria Police to steadfastly refuse to answer such simple questions is the very antithesis of the core principles of the Freedom of Information Act.

I ask again for you to respond within the next few days to my original FOI questions - or to atleast answer the above three questions as an interim response.

Yours faithfully,

Paul Hopkins