Officers serving with Humberside Police convicted for inciting a witness to commit perjury

The request was partially successful.

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended)

Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

Please disclose all information held by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to Police officers serving with Humberside police who have incited witnesses to commit perjury.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Gilliatt

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

We are unable to proceed with your request as it is not clear what information it is you require. Please can you provide further details on what information you are looking for and try to be as specific as possible about the information you require.

If we do not receive clarification of your information requirements within one calendar month of this response, we will consider your request closed.

Kind Regards,

A Hussain
Information Management Advisor
Crown Prosecution Service
020 3357 7130

show quoted sections

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended)

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

Perhaps it would be beneficial to gave a brief background to the events that have motivated me to submit this request.

I have for a number of years been engaged in matters relating to fraud committed by private bailiffs working on behalf of local authorities.

Since around 2009, Humberside police have for an array of reasons refused to investigate allegations of fraud committed by the aforementioned firms. The force has made it categorically clear that the evidence I have submitted – initially relating to attempts by Rossendales to defraud myself – and subsequently to the matter scaled up and relating to several bailiff firms, does not warrant police resources being used.

The sums, which are based on a five year period, potentially amount to millions of pounds throughout the country.

I have submitted complaints in relation to the force turning a blind eye to the serious matter, i.e., local authorities abetting their bailiff contractors to abuse their powers in helping themselves to vulnerable taxpayer's money, in response to which the force has been equally negligent in dealing with. The force demonstrates no signs of accountability, appearing to conduct itself without any standard or duty to the taxpayer, or to put it in other words, a law unto itself.

There is a sense that police forces are under pressure not to pursue cases that might impact on the amount of tax collected by the state and so the fraud associated with private firms awarded government contracts for this work is brushed under the carpet. The force's unaccountability is self evident by it failing to take allegations of fraud seriously and subsequently mishandling complaints against it in regards that failure. A complaint which has yet to conclude and has been ongoing for approaching two years was initially recorded wrongly as 'Direction & Control' whilst in fact should have been classified as a 'Conduct Matter'. The significance being that whilst a 'Conduct Matter' had a right to appeal, in the case of a 'Direction and Control' complaint there was no right of appeal, and stated as such in the negative outcome to the complaint. After researching the matter the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) agreed with my assertions that Humberside police had wrongly classified the complaint, i.e., to avoid having to deal with an appeal. It was implied at that time by the head of the department dealing with the response, who incidentally blatantly lied in the contrived response that an appeal right was academic because the force would at no point consider the fraud allegations for an investigation.

My concerns are that because of my ongoing dispute with the force and the problems that it may be causing certain persons serving with Humberside police, there may be a perverse incentive to abuse police powers and have me inconvenienced in some way. This appears may be behind why a police officer wrongly arrested me on trumped-up charges which led to false imprisonment for around 8 hours on the evening of 27.8.15. My suspicions are that the arresting officer also encouraged a witness to make false allegations to aid a criminal case against me, or in other words incited a witness to commit perjury.

I am of course going to be exploring the avenues for having the force made accountable for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment regardless of the (trumped-up) charges, but I have good reason to believe that there may be serious corruption in the force which requires the attention of the appropriate authorities and so I am making the request as a preliminary way of discovering any similar historical cases.

The background I have provided of course does not in itself clarify my request but it is in the context of the incident referred to on the 27 Aug 2015 that I would like any information held by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to Police officers serving with Humberside police who have incited witnesses to commit perjury.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Gillatt,

Thank you for your email. It seems you are requesting any information held by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to Police officers serving with Humberside police who have incited witnesses to commit perjury.

Currently your request is fairly wide. Your request would require manually reviewing all case files related to perjury in the area of Humberside to understand whether it relates to Police Officers inciting witnesses to commit perjury, therefore it is likely to engage section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Section 12(1) of the Act means public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government it is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

Furthermore, much of the information may also be exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act as it may potentially contain sensitive personal data of those involved.

Therefore, it would be sensible to refine what you mean by information, this would ensure I can do the appropriate searches for the information you require.

The following website may aid you in refining your request: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/offici...

Kind Regards,

A Hussain
Information Management Advisor
Crown Prosecution Service
020 3357 7130

show quoted sections

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended)

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

Thank you for your response but I have every reason to believe that who ever has told that it would require the amount of work which you describe has an ulterior motive for applying the s12 exemption.

Does the CPS not have an up-to-date computer system which makes light work of this?

That said, would it help if I narrowed the request to only include the period from 2007 to date?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Gillat,

Thank you for your email.

What we require is what you mean by information. The word information in itself is a wide term.

You have said you would like any information held by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to Police officers serving with Humberside police who have incited witnesses to commit perjury from the year 2007 to date.

Please confirm if this is the request you would like me to work on.

Kind regards,

A Hussain
Information Management Advisor
Crown Prosecution Service
0203 357 0899

show quoted sections

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended)

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

You have asked 'what we require is what you mean by information. The word information in itself is a wide term.'

Then you have asked if I would confirm that the following is what I would like the CPS to work on:

"You have said you would like any information held by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to Police officers serving with Humberside police who have incited witnesses to commit perjury from the year 2007 to date."

Can you please explain why the two conflicting messages have been conveyed in your 9 September email and whether, if I confirm (which I do) that the above (directly above) is what you require, then a definition of the word information (in the context of my request) will not be required?

My suspicion is that Humberside police may have a very bad track record in the matter relating to this request and the CPS may not want to give a straight forward response as a favour to another public body.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

Thank you for your email. We have asked you to clarify what you mean by information on several occasions, however no clarification has been received. Due to this I have asked you to confirm 'if you would like any information held by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to Police officers serving with Humberside police who have incited witnesses to commit perjury from the year 2007 to date'. I have asked this so as to progress your request and make the relevant enquiries. You have now confirmed this in your email which we received on 19 September 2015 .

The FOI Act is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOI Act by definition becomes available to the wider public.

There is a 20 working day limit in which we are required to respond to requests.

The deadline for your request is 16 October 2015.

Yours sincerely

Mr A Hussain
Information Management Unit
020 3357 0899
[CPS request email]

Thank you for your email. We have asked you to clarify what you mean by information on several occasions, however no clarification has been received. Due to this I have asked you to confirm 'if you would like any information held by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to Police officers serving with Humberside police who have incited witnesses to commit perjury from the year 2007 to date'.
I have asked this so as to progress your request and make the relevant enquiries to the best of my abilities. The wording I have used is from the previous correspondence you have sent us.

show quoted sections

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended)

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

Response to this request is delayed. By law, Crown Prosecution Service should have responded by 28 September 2015.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

Thank you For your email. The deadline for your request is not 28 September it is 16 October. It was not possible to start your Freedom of Information request when you first contacted the CPS as I needed to seek clarification from you regarding your request.

Kind regards,

Mr A Hussain
Information Management Unit
020 3357 0391
[email address]

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

1 Attachment

Dear My Gilliatt

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

Please see the attached response to your Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely

Mr A Hussain
Information Management Unit
020 3357 0899
[CPS request email]

show quoted sections

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended)

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

I personally find it hard to believe that there is not a more efficient way of obtaining the information other than by a manual search as has been described in the 15 October 2015 attachment. However, knowing the number of offences prosecuted by the CPS for Perverting the Course of Justice in which the defendants were police staff from April 2007 to March 2015 is a starting point.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Gilliat,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

Thank you for your Freedom of Information (FOI) request which we received on 19 October 2015.

The FOI Act is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information disclosed under the FOI Act by definition becomes available to the wider public.

There is a 20 working day limit in which we are required to respond to requests.

The deadline for your request is 16 November 2015 .

Yours sincerely

Mr A Hussain
Information Management Unit
020 3357 0899
[CPS request email]

show quoted sections

Neil Gilliatt (Account suspended)

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

Is this typical of the kind of approach on which public bodies rely to delay disclosure?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Gilliatt

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Gilliatt,

Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request

Please see the attached response to your Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely

Mr A Hussain
Information Management Unit
020 3357 0899
[CPS request email]

show quoted sections

Davo38 left an annotation ()

Omg this is shocking if we can't trust the people that are placed to serve us what the hell do we do 24 officers in 2015/16 that's disgraceful let's hope there's been a change this year then shall we!

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org