Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please provide:

1. A copy of the Operation Barium investigation report.

2. Copies of emails between Lancashire Police and WYOPCC where the subject was
either:
(a) Mark Gilmore
(b) Operation Barium

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Wilby

 

Thank you for your request for information received by the OPCC on 21
September 2016.  

 

You requested the following information:

 

1.   A copy of the Operation Barium investigation report.

2.   Copies of emails between Lancashire Police and WYOPCC where the
subject was either:

 

(a)        Mark Gilmore

(b)        Operation Barium

 

Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act provides:

 

(1)  A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying 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.

 

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 obliges us to respond to requests
promptly and in any case no later than 20 working days after receiving
your request. We must consider firstly whether we can comply with S1(1)(a)
of the Act, which is our duty to confirm whether or not the information
requested is held and secondly we must comply with S1(1)(b), which is the
provision of such information.

 

However, when a qualified exemption applies either to the confirmation or
denial or the information provision and the public interest test is
engaged, the Act allows the time for response to be longer than 20 working
days, if the balance of such public interest is undetermined.

 

In this case, we have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of
the public interest lies. We estimate that it will take an additional 20
working days to take a decision on where this balance lies. 

 

I would like to apologise in advance for the delay in responding to your
request.

 

Please be assured that we will endeavour to send a response out to you as
soon as possible.

 

If you no longer require the information requested, please contact us on
the details above.

 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

 

Julie Reid

 

 

Julie Reid

Business Support Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Tel:  01924 294000

Email:  [1][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[2]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[3][IMG]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
3. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner's handling of my FOI request 'Operation Barium'.

The grounds for complaint are as follows:

1. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 obliges a data controller to respond to requests promptly. It is manifestly unfair, and against the spirit of the Act, to ask on the 20th working day for an extension for the time to respond.

2. This repeats the conduct in a previous request in which two similar extensions have been sought in order to evade the data controller's responsibilities under the Act:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/o...

3. In the instant request the request for an extension of time lacks both substance and credibility. The matter of the Operation Barium investigation into misconduct allegations against former chief constable Mark Gilmore has been well ventilated in the local, regional and national press. The investigation report was delivered to the data controller on 26th July, 2016 by Lancashire Police.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

4. The matter of whether and in what form the Operation Barium report will be published has already been the subject of public comment by the data controller: “I have committed to publish as much of this report as I can” is what he told the Yorkshire Post on 12th September, 2016.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/reve...

Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/reve...

5. In the light of paras 4 and 5 above, the confirm or deny argument advanced by the data controller appears, on its face, to be misconceived. It is submitted that the true motive of the data controller is to deny materials that will assist in the filling out of this article I wrote in August, 2016 following the resignation of Mark Gilmore.

https://neilwilby.com/2016/08/13/barium-...

6. Accordingly, I do not agree to the data controllers request for an extension of time and a plausible explanation is required within 20 working days from today's as to why the information request was not finalised within the statutory period. Failing which, a complaint will be made to the Information Commissioner's office.

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

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

This article has now appeared in the Yorkshire Post and Yorkshire Evening Post as a result of me broadcasting your failure to disclose on social media. It also supports the points I have made in my complaint.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crim...

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

2 Attachments

 

Dear Mr Wilby

 

Re:  request for a copy of the Operation Barium investigation report and
copies of emails between Lancashire Constabulary and the OPCC where the
subject was either Mark Gilmore or Operation Barium.

 

Further to your request for an internal review of the decision to extend
the timeframe for responding to your request I am writing to advise you
that a review has been done by two independent members of the Joint
Independent Audit and Ethics Committee.   The members agreed that it was
reasonable to extend the timeframe for responding to your request in order
to consider a public interest test given the complexity of the information
and necessary legal considerations.    Your appeal has not been upheld.

 

Kind regards.

 

Julie Reid

 

 

Julie Reid

Business Support Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Tel:  01924 294000

Email:  [1][West Yorkshire PCC request email]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[2]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[3][IMG]

 

 

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[West Yorkshire PCC request email]
2. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
3. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/

Dear FOI (WYPCC),

A complaint has now been filed with the Information Commissioner's Office and acknowledged by them.

The grounds for complaint are

1. That the review did not adequately address the heads of complaint.

2. The finalisation of the internal review did not provide enough detail as to why the reviewers (if indeed it was reviewed at all) considered the extension of time reasonable. For example:
a. How voluminous is the report?
b. What are the considerations being balanced as part of the public interest?
c. Who is carrying out that work?
d. Why has it taken over three months?
e. Why has no timescale been given for disclosure either in full or in redacted form?

3. Neither the identity nor, more pointedly, the qualifications of the persons allegedly carrying out the internal review, has been disclosed. Nor has a written record of what they were asked to consider or their findings arising from that. Instead, I am presented with unsubstantiated hearsay from the disclosure officer complained about. That, on any level, is unethical and defeats the object of having an independent review of the request carried out.

4. My overarching submission is that the proposition of the Operation Barium not being in a state of preparedness for disclosure is, to the independent and informed observer, at best, fanciful and, as such, unreasonably defeats the presumption under S1 of the Act for disclosure.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire. This mailbox is
monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond to your message
within 10 working days but please be aware that this mailbox receives a
high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Wilby

 

Further to my email of 19 October 2016 I am writing to advise you that
consideration is still being given to the balance of the public interest
in relation to your request for a copy of the Operation Barium report and
for copies of emails between Lancashire Constabulary and West Yorkshire
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner where the subject was either
Mark Gilmore or Operation Barium.    Unfortunately, our response to your
FOI request has been delayed further.

 

Please accept my apologies for this delay.

 

Julie Reid

 

Julie Reid

Business Support Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Tel:  01924 294000

Email:  [1][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[2]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[3][IMG]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[West Yorkshire PCC request email]
2. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
3. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/

Dear FOI (WYPCC),

The Act allows authorities to extend the standard 20 working day response period to consider the public interest test, where this is “reasonable in the circumstances”. The Information Commissioner’s guidance states that extra time should not normally be needed but that where the public interest considerations are “exceptionally complex” a longer period, not exceeding a further 20 working days, may be necessary.

Please, therefore, set out (i) what precisely is being put into the balance so that a reasonableness test can be applied (ii) the factors that would support an argument that they are exceptionally complex.

These factors should have already been considered, and determined, by your internal auditors when reviewing my complaint, so a prompt response is expected.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire. This mailbox is
monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond to your message
within 10 working days but please be aware that this mailbox receives a
high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Dear Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email of 21 November 2016. A number of qualified exemptions, which require a public interest test, are being considered in relation to your request and we will be in a position to provide you with a response once this has concluded. We are dealing with your request as speedily as practically possible and apologise once more for the delay.

Yours

Julie Reid

Julie Reid
Business Support Manager
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Tel: 01924 294000
Email: [email address]

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit: www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI (WYPCC),

In my posting of 21st November, 2016 you were asked to provide a response to the following.

"Please, therefore, set out (i) what precisely is being put into the balance so that a reasonableness test can be applied (ii) the factors that would support an argument that they are exceptionally complex".

You elected not to do so. A further eight weeks have elapsed since then, the request remains unfinalised and the above information has not been provided.

Can you now either answer the questions at (i) and (ii) above, or issue a refusal notice in respect of the request?

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire. This mailbox is
monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond to your message
within 10 working days but please be aware that this mailbox receives a
high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email of 5 January 2017. Please accept my apologies for the continuing delay in providing you with a response to your request. The public interest in this case is still being considered and we will provide you with a response as soon as possible.

Regards.

Julie Reid

Julie Reid
Business Support Manager
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Tel: 01924 294000
Email: [email address]

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit: www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI (WYPCC),

On 10th January, 2017 I lodged a complaint with the Information Commissioner under Section 50 of the Act.

The grounds for complaint are:

1. That the internal review did not adequately address the heads of complaint.

2. The finalisation of the internal review did not provide enough detail as to why the reviewers (if indeed it was reviewed at all) considered the extension of time reasonable. For example:
a. How voluminous is the report?
b. What are the considerations being balanced as part of the public interest?
c. Who is carrying out that work?
d. Why has it taken over three months?
e. Why has no timescale been given for disclosure either in full or in redacted form?

3. Neither the identity nor, more pointedly, the qualifications of the persons allegedly carrying out the internal review, has been disclosed. Nor has a written record of what they were asked to consider or their findings arising from that. Instead, I am presented with unsubstantiated hearsay from the disclosure officer complained about. That, on any level, is unethical and defeats the object of having an independent review of the request carried out.

4. My overarching submission is that the proposition of the Operation Barium not being in a state of preparedness for disclosure is, to the independent and informed observer, at best, fanciful and, as such, unreasonably defeats the presumption under S1 of the Act for disclosure.

5. Finally, and most importantly, the data controller continues to stall over finalising a request that is almost four months old at the date of this complaint.

Due to an oversight the complaint was NOT filed with the ICO on 10th November, 2016. I aologise for any confusion this may have caused.

You wil no doubt be hearing fom the ICO in due course.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire. This mailbox is
monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond to your message
within 10 working days but please be aware that this mailbox receives a
high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

I am informed that the Information Commissioner's Office gave you a direction yesterday (27th April, 2017) to the effect that a finalisation to the request must be made within 10 days.

Please confirm that you have received and understood the ICO's message.

Failure to comply will result in a without notice application being made to enforce the direction by court order.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email. I can confirm that the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner has received correspondence from the Information Commissioner's Office in relation to your complaint.

Yours

Julie Reid

Julie Reid
Business Support Manager
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Tel: 01924 294000
Email: [email address]

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit: www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

show quoted sections

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

3 Attachments

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

 

I refer to previous correspondence in connection with your communication
of 21 September 2016 in which you requested certain information from the
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire (OPCC)
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act).

 

I apologise on behalf of the Commissioner for the delays in responding
substantively to your request.

 

Generally the Commissioner is committed to transparency in the exercise of
his functions, holding the West Yorkshire Police to account and
maintaining an effective and efficient police force.  However, your
request has given rise to complex legal considerations, explained below.

 

YOUR REQUEST:

 

You requested release of the following information to you:

 

1.     A copy of the Operation Barium investigation report.

 

2.     Copies of emails between Lancashire Police and the OPCC whether the
subject was either:

a)     Mark Gilmore

b)     Operation Barium.

 

DECISION:

 

I confirm that the OPCC holds an investigation report in relation to the
conduct of former Chief Constable Gilmore.  I also confirm that the OPCC
holds emails between it and Lancashire Police in relation to Mr Gilmore
and the investigation.

 

I had previously indicated to you that the delay in my being able to
respond fully to you was caused by the need for detailed consideration of
the public interest issues arising in connection with the application of
certain exemptions in the FOI Act.

 

In relation to paragraph 1 of your request (the investigation report), the
OPCC was bound to consider the following exemptions under Part II the Act,
which we understand as an experienced journalist you are familiar with:

 

·       Section 31 (Law enforcement), in particular subsection (1)(g)
which refers to the exercise by any public authority of its functions for
any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).  Section 31(2) refers to
(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply
with the law, (b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is
responsible for any conduct which is improper, and (c) the purpose of
ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action
in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise.  Each of those
subsections warranted consideration in this case.  The Commissioner has
statutory functions in relation to the police misconduct regime, under the
Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (the
PCR).  The investigation report considers whether Mr Gilmore misconducted
himself by reference to the Standards of Professional Behaviour for police
officers in schedule 2 of the PCR.  In this connection I note that there
have not been any proceedings against Mr Gilmore and the allegations have
not been tested at a hearing and have not been proved.

 

·       Section 40 (Personal information), in particular subsection (2)
because the investigation report contains personal data relating to Mr
Gilmore and personal data relating to other persons who were witnesses or
otherwise are identified.  We appreciate that section 40 is an absolute
exemption, however it requires consideration of whether disclosure of the
information requested would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998, which
in turn requires consideration of fairness in all the circumstances, which
may include the public interest in the subject matter of the investigation
report.

 

In relation to paragraph 2 of your request (emails between the OPCC and
the Lancashire Police), the OPCC was bound to consider the following
exemptions:

 

·       Section 30 (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities), in particular section 30(2) in relation to the misconduct
investigation being conducted by the Commissioner with the assistance of
Lancashire Police (see the references to functions in connection with
section 31(2) of the FOI Act, referred to above).  The investigation drew
in part on confidential sources, referred to in some of the emails which
may fall within your request.

 

·       Section 31 (Law enforcement), for the reasons referred to above in
relation to paragraph 1.

 

·       Section 40 (Personal information), for the reasons referred to
above in relation to paragraph 1.

 

·       Section 42 (Legal professional privilege), in relation to emails
in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be
maintained.  Legal advice was taken for the purposes of the investigation
and is referred to in some of the emails which may fall within your
request.

 

However, consideration of your request has been complicated since November
2016 by the fact that persons with an interest in information in the
investigation report and in emails between the OPCC and Lancashire Police
have objected to disclosure of the same and have intimated civil
proceedings against the Commissioner.  Civil proceedings have more
recently been issued against the Commissioner, in which the misconduct
investigation and the question of publication of the investigation report
are in issue.

 

This engages the exemption in the FOI Act at section 31(1)(c) “the
administration of justice”.  I have considered whether disclosure of the
information requested in paragraphs 1 and 2 of your request would be
likely to prejudice the administration of justice and I have concluded
that in the present circumstances, it would.  This relates to civil
proceedings intimated and issued against the Commissioner in relation to
the investigation conducted by the Commissioner with the assistance of
Lancashire Police into the conduct of Mr Gilmore.

 

I am alive to the public interest in an investigation into the conduct of
a former Chief Constable while he is in office.  However there is a strong
public interest in allowing civil proceedings to take their course.

 

To disclose the information you have requested would impact on the ability
of the parties and the court to consider the issues as they stand, in
circumstances where those issues include the investigation and the
question of publication of the investigation report.  To disclose the
information now may prevent persons with an interest in the information
from exercising their rights, may undermine the jurisdiction of the court
or may pre-judge the outcome of proceedings or any application made within
the proceedings.

 

I have therefore determined that the information sought at paragraphs 1
and 2 of your request will be withheld.  It follows from the reasons for
that decision that once the civil proceedings have been resolved, the risk
of prejudice to the administration of justice may have changed and it may
be that a different decision would be taken.

 

REVIEW RIGHTS

 

If you consider that your request for information is not been properly
handled or if you are otherwise dissatisfied with the outcome of your
request, you may seek an internal review within the OPCC of the issue or
the decision.  I am attaching a copy of our appeal procedure.

 

A request for an internal review should be submitted in writing to the
Interim Chief Executive, OPCC for West Yorkshire, Ploughland House, 62
George Street, Wakefield, WF 1  1DL.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of any internal review, you
may complain to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether
your request for information is been dealt with in accordance with the FOI
Act. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at the Office of the
Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire,
SK9 5AF.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Julie Reid

 

 

 

Julie Reid

Business Support Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Email:  [1][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[2]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[3][IMG]

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
3. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner's handling of my FOI request 'Operation Barium'.

Investigation report

The data controller relies on two exemptions:

1. Section 31: It is submitted, with some force, that this exemption cannot reasonably be engaged. The proceedings, according to Mr Gilmore's solicitors, are a public law challenge to (i) the fact that no misconduct finding has been made by the data controller in accordance with his statutory obligations (ii) publication of the report (even though no recorded decision has been made to publish it).

A judicial review application is, in almost every case, dealt with on paper by a single judge. The issues of prejudice, or the ability of the parties to consider the two matters, in the event of disclosure under the Act, are, in my respectful submission, red herrings. Particularly in the light of the publication of this exclusive article on Friday 12th May, 2017

https://neilwilby.com/2017/05/12/cost-of...

This news was picked up by local, regional and national press - and further articles published on Tuesday 16th May, 2017.

The civil proceedings will take their judicial course with, or without, disclosure under the Act. The two are not inter-dependent. It is also noteworthy that the pleadings in those civil proceedings will be public documents available upon request from the court and after payment of a copying fee. They will, it is reasonable to infer, contain sufficient references to the contentious parts of the Operation Barium report for the remainder to be pieced together with what is already in the public domain.

Those with an interest in the report whom it is claimed (without evidence) have objected to its publication retain the right to issue proceedings under Section 13 (1) and (2) of the Data Protection Act, 1998 if they consider their rights have been infringed by disclosure under the Act. There is no reference in the instant request finalisation of civil proceedings being filed and served by any other party than Mr Gilmore.

Further, and in any event, Mr Gilmore retired from the police service shortly after the report was finalised and, from that point, he placed himself beyond the scope of any misconduct proceedings. This serves only to heighten public interest in the findings of the report and shine light upon what the data controller is seeking to conceal.

2. Section 40: For much the same reasons as set out above, Mr Gilmore cannot reasonably expect to have the report into alleged misconduct suppressed. He was a serving chief constable at the time the report was instigated and at the time it was delivered to the data controller. He was a police officer who actively courted publicity. Complete with ‘stage managed’ photographs with the data controller with whom he is now plainly in dispute. It would not, in my submission, be unfair on him for the report to be published, irrespective of the findings. Within the relevant statutory framework, Mr Gilmore was the appropriate authority for dealing with misconduct and discipline concerning all the officers within his force

There is also the matter of the very substantial, and increasing, public interest in the report. This is not a prurient kiss and tell story: It concerns allegations of misconduct against a very senior police officer that, prior to the commissioning of the Operation Barium report, had been the subject of a lengthy criminal investigation. It also now concerns, from what is already in the public domain, allegations that a Police and Crime Commissioner (also the data controller in the instant request) has also broken the law at least once. As there is no published Decision Notice on his website concerning misconduct findings then he has also, seemingly, breached the Elected Local Policing Bodies (Specified Information) Order, 2011.

In the light of the foregoing it is submitted, with some force and informed by extensive past dealings with this data controller, that the time-wasting and ultimate refusal to disclose the Operation Barium is grounded only in prevention of further reputational damage to this data controller and his chief executive over what appears to be a scandalous waste of public funds.

Emails

The data controller relies on four exemptions:

3. Section 30: The data controller relies on the fact that the ‘investigation drew in part on confidential sources, referred to in some of the emails’ for not disclosing all of the emails. That position is unsustainable. Any part of those emails that refer to the source, or the information provided by the source, can reasonably be expected to be disclosed in redacted form. The remainder should fall for disclosure as no reason is advanced for not doing so.

4. Section 31: The same reasons as set out at para 1 above are relied upon to make out the case for disclosure.

5. Section 40: The same reasons as set out at para 1 above are relied upon to make out the case for disclosure.

6. Section 42: The data controller has not identified how many emails would be exempt by way of legal privilege. It is accepted that where legal advice was provided for the purpose of instigating or continuing the investigation by Lancashire Police then those parts of the emails would be exempt and dealt with by way of redaction. The rest of the emails for the reasons outlined above at paras 3. 4. And 5. Should fall for disclosure.

More generally:

7. The Act at Sections 1, 2 and 19 implicitly recognises the public interest in presumption (or assumption) for disclosure. This was underscored in the seminal 2007 case of The Guardian and Brooke –v- ICO and BBC .

8. In September, 2016 the data controller renewed his pledge to the Police and Crime Scrutiny Panel to publish as much of the report as possible was quoted in The Yorkshire Post as such.

9. The history of this request – made 8 days after that pledge – regrettably shows a very different approach. No section 17 notice was provided until May 2017, and only following the intervention of the Information Commissioner’s office. Other complaints to the ICO, concerning the manner in which internal reviews were conducted by the data controller remain extant. The period between October and May is marked only by continuous obfuscation - and an attempt to conceal that civil proceedings had been issued against the data controller by Mr Gilmore. A matter that is more likely than not to cause significant embarassment and reputational damage to the data controller.

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

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

Thank you for your correspondence of 22 May 2017. I am writing to you to advise you that your request for an internal review was considered by two independent members of the Joint Independent Audit and Ethics Committee on 12 June 2017.

After due consideration members agreed not to uphold the appeal. During the course of the internal review members requested evidence to show how the OPCC had processed the FOI request. Members were assured that this was being progressed and, except for the legal challenge, the request for disclosure of the investigation report would in all likelihood have been finalised earlier this year. Members noted that, on conclusion of the civil proceedings, the risk of prejudice may have changed and a different decision may then be taken. By association, members agreed that the emails between the OPCC and Lancashire Constabulary should also not be disclosed at this stage.

Regards

Julie Reid

Julie Reid
Business Support Manager
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Tel: 01924 294000
Email: [email address]

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit: www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

show quoted sections

Dear FOI (WYPCC),

I refer to the post on this thread dated 16th June, 2017.

The internal review response the data controller has provided is not compliant with either ICO Guidance or the College of Policing's Authorised Professional Practice (APP).

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/gui...

and

https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...

Concerning the latter, there is this expectation that, as an elected policing body, charged with holding the chief constable to account, the data controller maintains standards that are at least the equal (in theory at least) of that same chief constable.

From information freely available to the public, the composition of the Joint Internal Audit Committee (JIAC) is found to be Trevor Lake, Richard Baldwin, Harry Bowers, Ann Liston. Their Terms of Reference (TOR) are:

https://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/how...

I recognise three of the names from my dealings with the former West Yorkshire Police Authority (WYPA): Messrs Lake, Baldwin and Ms Liston). None of the three, to my own knowledge and from such biographical information about them in the public domain, are information or data practitioners capable of dealing with an issue of this nature. The TOR's don't appear to give the JIAC locus, either.

Further, and in any event, none of the specific points raised (challenges to exemptions relied upon by the data controller) have been addressed, or finalised. As such the 'internal review' can, safely, be characterised as a 'whitewash' in the very best WYPA traditions.

As such, a further Section 50 complaint is being made to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). They will no doubt be in touch with you in due course.

A complaint against the data controller

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby

Web: neilwilby.com

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire. This mailbox is
monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond to your message
within 10 working days but please be aware that this mailbox receives a
high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

The following citation has been drawn to my attention:

Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary, Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights [2016] (18030/11).

By way of that ruling, journalists carry special status in finalisation of information requests made to public authorities.

Your continued refusal to disclose any of the requested information, and particularly the manner in which the request has been handled, engage my Article 10 convention rights.

Unless disclosure is made within 7 days, I will bring civil court proceedings against the Police Commissioner seeking damages, declaratory relief and non-monetary relief.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

Thank you for your email, below.

As you know the Information Commissioner is considering this matter and we await the outcome of that review. We respectfully suggest that issuing proceedings in advance of this is both premature and inappropriate.

Regards,

Julie Reid

Julie Reid
Business Support Manager
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner
Tel: 01924 294000
Email: [West Yorkshire PCC request email]

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit: www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

Dear FOI (WYPCC),

Thank you for your response.

The Information Commissioner has been 'considering' my complaint since 5th January, 2017. She is an integral part of the problem, not the solution.

The last in a series of complaints concerning Operation Barium was made to the Information Commissioner on 19th June, 2017. The last contact from her office was over 4 weeks ago.

The issue of proceedings concerning breach of my Article 10 convention rights is completely unaffected by the outcome of that complaint.

Further, and in any event, any decision made by the Information Commissioner is not binding on either party and, of itself, would be open to challenge via Tribunal proceedings. In the particular circumstances of this case, civil proceedings is the appropriate, and proportionate, route to take.

The issue of prematurity simply does not arise. Your proposition that it does may well be seen by an independent, reasonable-minded reviewer, such as a district judge, as the latest in an ever-lengthening, constantly-changing list of excuses to delay disclosure.

As previously stated on this website, I am seeking damages, declaratory relief and non-monetary relief. The claim, as drafted, is unanswerable. There is no available defence to what is pleaded.

As your lawyers, including Mr Beggs, will be well aware, none of those remedies, as set out in the preceding paragraph, is available via the ICO.

Unless I receive an address for service in the meantime, the claim form will be issued to:

Mark Burns-Williamson
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire
62 George Street
Wakefield
WF1 1DL

If you wish to consider compromising the claim, then the PCC would need to approach me before 4pm on Friday 11th August, 2017.

The full thread of correspondence, including this communication, will be exhibited.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire. This mailbox is
monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond to your message
within 10 working days but please be aware that this mailbox receives a
high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

Having taken independent legal advice, a decision has been taken not to issue legal proceedings as previously contemplated.

I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.

The matter will be reviewed at the outcome of the present ICO investigation. Which, based on past history with the ICO, may not be delivered until after the substantive hearing of CO/1900/2016 on 1st/2nd November, 2017.

Any proceedings issued by me this week would be very unlikely to be heard before then, in any event.

It is noted in the Summary Grounds of Defence that counsel (Mr Beggs/Mr Rathmell) for the PCC argue strongly in favour of disclosure of the Operation Barium report under the Act.

A separate FOIA request is to be submitted in respect of the investigation concerning the whistleblower allegations made against Mr Gilmore after he had been suspended in June 2014.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

The ICO published their Decision Notice on 24th August, 2017.

https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-tak...

Although it upheld my s10 and s17 complaints, an appeal against the Decision concerning s31 prejudice exemption was filed with the General Regulatory Chamber on Tuesday 29th August, 2017:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/axduwe97n59yl4...

I have not been notified, as yet, that the PCC has been joined as a Second Respondent.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

The judicial review proceedings between Mark Gilmore and the PCC are at an end. As you are aware, I was in attendance at the substantive hearing. This is Supperstone J's judgment.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

Accordingly, the Operation Barium report now falls for disclosure, under the Act and, most particularly, by way of the instant request.

I am aware, from written pleadings and in oral submissions to the court, that a draft, redacted version of the 54 page report was sent to Mr Gilmore's legal advisers, six weeks ago, for comment.

That, effectively, confirms that the report is ready for disclosure - and any further delay in finalising this request (now 14 months old) would risk inviting a prosecution under s77 of the Act over 'seriously improper conduct'.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

Dear West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner,

A further ten days has elapsed without even the courtesy of an acknowledgement, or an update. Meanwhile, the PCC continues to flout his responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act.

I am writing today to the Information Commissioner's Criminal Investigations Manager, Mr David McKee, to ask him to open a file with a view to prosecuting Mark Burns-Williamson over the conduct of this information request by way of s77 of the Act.

Your press officer will be aproached for comment on an article that is being written on the subject.

Yours faithfully,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

Contact (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire.

 

This mailbox is monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond
to your message within 10 working days but please be aware that this
mailbox receives a high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

3 Attachments

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

 

Further to our email of 11 May 2017 regarding your request for information
about Operation Barium (below) I am writing to advise you that, following
conclusion of the civil proceedings and the judgement which was issued on
14 November 2017, your request is being reviewed.   A formal determination
is expected to be made by 22 December and I will contact you again as soon
as this has been done.

 

Regards

 

Julie Reid

 

 

Julie Reid

Governance Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Tel:  01924 294000

Email:  [1][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[2]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[3]cid:image003.jpg@01D36AC3.337DDD50

 

 

 

From: FOI (WYPCC)
Sent: 11 May 2017 16:18
To: [FOI #360432 email]
Subject: Request for Information, Ref 184 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

 

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

 

I refer to previous correspondence in connection with your communication
of 21 September 2016 in which you requested certain information from the
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire (OPCC)
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act).

 

I apologise on behalf of the Commissioner for the delays in responding
substantively to your request.

 

Generally the Commissioner is committed to transparency in the exercise of
his functions, holding the West Yorkshire Police to account and
maintaining an effective and efficient police force.  However, your
request has given rise to complex legal considerations, explained below.

 

YOUR REQUEST:

 

You requested release of the following information to you:

 

1.     A copy of the Operation Barium investigation report.

 

2.     Copies of emails between Lancashire Police and the OPCC whether the
subject was either:

a)     Mark Gilmore

b)     Operation Barium.

 

DECISION:

 

I confirm that the OPCC holds an investigation report in relation to the
conduct of former Chief Constable Gilmore.  I also confirm that the OPCC
holds emails between it and Lancashire Police in relation to Mr Gilmore
and the investigation.

 

I had previously indicated to you that the delay in my being able to
respond fully to you was caused by the need for detailed consideration of
the public interest issues arising in connection with the application of
certain exemptions in the FOI Act.

 

In relation to paragraph 1 of your request (the investigation report), the
OPCC was bound to consider the following exemptions under Part II the Act,
which we understand as an experienced journalist you are familiar with:

 

·       Section 31 (Law enforcement), in particular subsection (1)(g)
which refers to the exercise by any public authority of its functions for
any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).  Section 31(2) refers to
(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply
with the law, (b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is
responsible for any conduct which is improper, and (c) the purpose of
ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action
in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise.  Each of those
subsections warranted consideration in this case.  The Commissioner has
statutory functions in relation to the police misconduct regime, under the
Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (the
PCR).  The investigation report considers whether Mr Gilmore misconducted
himself by reference to the Standards of Professional Behaviour for police
officers in schedule 2 of the PCR.  In this connection I note that there
have not been any proceedings against Mr Gilmore and the allegations have
not been tested at a hearing and have not been proved.

 

·       Section 40 (Personal information), in particular subsection (2)
because the investigation report contains personal data relating to Mr
Gilmore and personal data relating to other persons who were witnesses or
otherwise are identified.  We appreciate that section 40 is an absolute
exemption, however it requires consideration of whether disclosure of the
information requested would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998, which
in turn requires consideration of fairness in all the circumstances, which
may include the public interest in the subject matter of the investigation
report.

 

In relation to paragraph 2 of your request (emails between the OPCC and
the Lancashire Police), the OPCC was bound to consider the following
exemptions:

 

·       Section 30 (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities), in particular section 30(2) in relation to the misconduct
investigation being conducted by the Commissioner with the assistance of
Lancashire Police (see the references to functions in connection with
section 31(2) of the FOI Act, referred to above).  The investigation drew
in part on confidential sources, referred to in some of the emails which
may fall within your request.

 

·       Section 31 (Law enforcement), for the reasons referred to above in
relation to paragraph 1.

 

·       Section 40 (Personal information), for the reasons referred to
above in relation to paragraph 1.

 

·       Section 42 (Legal professional privilege), in relation to emails
in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be
maintained.  Legal advice was taken for the purposes of the investigation
and is referred to in some of the emails which may fall within your
request.

 

However, consideration of your request has been complicated since November
2016 by the fact that persons with an interest in information in the
investigation report and in emails between the OPCC and Lancashire Police
have objected to disclosure of the same and have intimated civil
proceedings against the Commissioner.  Civil proceedings have more
recently been issued against the Commissioner, in which the misconduct
investigation and the question of publication of the investigation report
are in issue.

 

This engages the exemption in the FOI Act at section 31(1)(c) “the
administration of justice”.  I have considered whether disclosure of the
information requested in paragraphs 1 and 2 of your request would be
likely to prejudice the administration of justice and I have concluded
that in the present circumstances, it would.  This relates to civil
proceedings intimated and issued against the Commissioner in relation to
the investigation conducted by the Commissioner with the assistance of
Lancashire Police into the conduct of Mr Gilmore.

 

I am alive to the public interest in an investigation into the conduct of
a former Chief Constable while he is in office.  However there is a strong
public interest in allowing civil proceedings to take their course.

 

To disclose the information you have requested would impact on the ability
of the parties and the court to consider the issues as they stand, in
circumstances where those issues include the investigation and the
question of publication of the investigation report.  To disclose the
information now may prevent persons with an interest in the information
from exercising their rights, may undermine the jurisdiction of the court
or may pre-judge the outcome of proceedings or any application made within
the proceedings.

 

I have therefore determined that the information sought at paragraphs 1
and 2 of your request will be withheld.  It follows from the reasons for
that decision that once the civil proceedings have been resolved, the risk
of prejudice to the administration of justice may have changed and it may
be that a different decision would be taken.

 

REVIEW RIGHTS

 

If you consider that your request for information is not been properly
handled or if you are otherwise dissatisfied with the outcome of your
request, you may seek an internal review within the OPCC of the issue or
the decision.  I am attaching a copy of our appeal procedure.

 

A request for an internal review should be submitted in writing to the
Interim Chief Executive, OPCC for West Yorkshire, Ploughland House, 62
George Street, Wakefield, WF 1  1DL.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of any internal review, you
may complain to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether
your request for information is been dealt with in accordance with the FOI
Act. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at the Office of the
Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire,
SK9 5AF.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Julie Reid

 

 

 

Julie Reid

Business Support Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Email:  [4][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[5]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[6]cid:image004.jpg@01D36AC3.337DDD50

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[West Yorkshire PCC request email]
2. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
3. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/
4. mailto:[email address]
5. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
6. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/

Dear FOI (WYPCC),

I have, this morning, spoken to Mr David McKee, Criminal Investigations Manager at the ICO, concerning this matter.

Following conclusion of the civil proceedings, which were largely a smoke screen in any event, for you to seek to take a further 38 days to determine an information request is seriously improper conduct, and an abuse of the PCC's statutory obligations under the Act so serious as to merit consideration of a s77 prosecution.

It should also be noted that in the week preceding the handing down of the judgment in Gilmore -v- WYPCC it was agreed between the parties that publication of the Operation Barium report was no longer in issue between the parties to the judicial review.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admi...

It should be further noted that in the skeleton argument of John Beggs QC, counsel for the PCC, he set out in very clear terms that a draft, redacted version of the Operation Barium report had been provided to Mr Gilmore's legal team in mid-September, 2017 and it was, in effect, disclosure ready under the Act from that point onwards.

What the PCC is now, quite plainly, seeking to do is to make this disclosure on the last working day before the Christmas holiday period. That is a grotesque abuse of both the Act and the PCC's responsibilities to the precept paying electorate, who have already suffered to the tune of circa £750,000 as a result of the PCC's poor judgement in appointing Mr Gilmore in the first place.

Mark Burns-Williamson cannot claim he wasn't publicly warned about the folly of that appointment. Not least by me, in an excoriating article I wrote and published in April, 2013.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Wilby
Investigative journalist

Twitter: @Neil_Wilby
Web: neilwilby.com

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

This is an automatic acknowledgement. Thank you for contacting the Office
of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire. This mailbox is
monitored during normal office hours only. We will respond to your message
within 10 working days but please be aware that this mailbox receives a
high volume of e-mails on a daily basis.

 

In the meantime, you may be able to find the information you are seeking
on the Police and Crime Commissioner's website
[1]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk.

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

4 Attachments

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

 

I write further to my email, below, to advise that further, substantial,
representations have been made to the Police and Crime Commissioner from
interested parties which engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.  
Please may I assure you that every effort is being made to progress this
matter and to provide you with a disclosure as soon as possible.

 

Regards

 

Julie Reid

 

 

Julie Reid

Governance Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Tel:  01924 294000

Email:  [1][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[2]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[3]cid:image001.jpg@01D375C2.04F84100

 

 

 

From: FOI (WYPCC)
Sent: 01 December 2017 16:41
To: [FOI #360432 email]
Subject: RE: Request for Information, Ref 184 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

 

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

 

Further to our email of 11 May 2017 regarding your request for information
about Operation Barium (below) I am writing to advise you that, following
conclusion of the civil proceedings and the judgement which was issued on
14 November 2017, your request is being reviewed.   A formal determination
is expected to be made by 22 December and I will contact you again as soon
as this has been done.

 

Regards

 

Julie Reid

 

 

Julie Reid

Governance Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Tel:  01924 294000

Email:  [4][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[5]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[6]cid:image003.jpg@01D36AC3.337DDD50

 

 

 

From: FOI (WYPCC)
Sent: 11 May 2017 16:18
To: [7][FOI #360432 email]
Subject: Request for Information, Ref 184 [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

 

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

 

I refer to previous correspondence in connection with your communication
of 21 September 2016 in which you requested certain information from the
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire (OPCC)
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI Act).

 

I apologise on behalf of the Commissioner for the delays in responding
substantively to your request.

 

Generally the Commissioner is committed to transparency in the exercise of
his functions, holding the West Yorkshire Police to account and
maintaining an effective and efficient police force.  However, your
request has given rise to complex legal considerations, explained below.

 

YOUR REQUEST:

 

You requested release of the following information to you:

 

1.     A copy of the Operation Barium investigation report.

 

2.     Copies of emails between Lancashire Police and the OPCC whether the
subject was either:

a)     Mark Gilmore

b)     Operation Barium.

 

DECISION:

 

I confirm that the OPCC holds an investigation report in relation to the
conduct of former Chief Constable Gilmore.  I also confirm that the OPCC
holds emails between it and Lancashire Police in relation to Mr Gilmore
and the investigation.

 

I had previously indicated to you that the delay in my being able to
respond fully to you was caused by the need for detailed consideration of
the public interest issues arising in connection with the application of
certain exemptions in the FOI Act.

 

In relation to paragraph 1 of your request (the investigation report), the
OPCC was bound to consider the following exemptions under Part II the Act,
which we understand as an experienced journalist you are familiar with:

 

·       Section 31 (Law enforcement), in particular subsection (1)(g)
which refers to the exercise by any public authority of its functions for
any of the purposes specified in subsection (2).  Section 31(2) refers to
(a) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply
with the law, (b) the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is
responsible for any conduct which is improper, and (c) the purpose of
ascertaining whether circumstances which would justify regulatory action
in pursuance of any enactment exist or may arise.  Each of those
subsections warranted consideration in this case.  The Commissioner has
statutory functions in relation to the police misconduct regime, under the
Police Reform Act 2002 and the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012 (the
PCR).  The investigation report considers whether Mr Gilmore misconducted
himself by reference to the Standards of Professional Behaviour for police
officers in schedule 2 of the PCR.  In this connection I note that there
have not been any proceedings against Mr Gilmore and the allegations have
not been tested at a hearing and have not been proved.

 

·       Section 40 (Personal information), in particular subsection (2)
because the investigation report contains personal data relating to Mr
Gilmore and personal data relating to other persons who were witnesses or
otherwise are identified.  We appreciate that section 40 is an absolute
exemption, however it requires consideration of whether disclosure of the
information requested would contravene the Data Protection Act 1998, which
in turn requires consideration of fairness in all the circumstances, which
may include the public interest in the subject matter of the investigation
report.

 

In relation to paragraph 2 of your request (emails between the OPCC and
the Lancashire Police), the OPCC was bound to consider the following
exemptions:

 

·       Section 30 (Investigations and proceedings conducted by public
authorities), in particular section 30(2) in relation to the misconduct
investigation being conducted by the Commissioner with the assistance of
Lancashire Police (see the references to functions in connection with
section 31(2) of the FOI Act, referred to above).  The investigation drew
in part on confidential sources, referred to in some of the emails which
may fall within your request.

 

·       Section 31 (Law enforcement), for the reasons referred to above in
relation to paragraph 1.

 

·       Section 40 (Personal information), for the reasons referred to
above in relation to paragraph 1.

 

·       Section 42 (Legal professional privilege), in relation to emails
in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be
maintained.  Legal advice was taken for the purposes of the investigation
and is referred to in some of the emails which may fall within your
request.

 

However, consideration of your request has been complicated since November
2016 by the fact that persons with an interest in information in the
investigation report and in emails between the OPCC and Lancashire Police
have objected to disclosure of the same and have intimated civil
proceedings against the Commissioner.  Civil proceedings have more
recently been issued against the Commissioner, in which the misconduct
investigation and the question of publication of the investigation report
are in issue.

 

This engages the exemption in the FOI Act at section 31(1)(c) “the
administration of justice”.  I have considered whether disclosure of the
information requested in paragraphs 1 and 2 of your request would be
likely to prejudice the administration of justice and I have concluded
that in the present circumstances, it would.  This relates to civil
proceedings intimated and issued against the Commissioner in relation to
the investigation conducted by the Commissioner with the assistance of
Lancashire Police into the conduct of Mr Gilmore.

 

I am alive to the public interest in an investigation into the conduct of
a former Chief Constable while he is in office.  However there is a strong
public interest in allowing civil proceedings to take their course.

 

To disclose the information you have requested would impact on the ability
of the parties and the court to consider the issues as they stand, in
circumstances where those issues include the investigation and the
question of publication of the investigation report.  To disclose the
information now may prevent persons with an interest in the information
from exercising their rights, may undermine the jurisdiction of the court
or may pre-judge the outcome of proceedings or any application made within
the proceedings.

 

I have therefore determined that the information sought at paragraphs 1
and 2 of your request will be withheld.  It follows from the reasons for
that decision that once the civil proceedings have been resolved, the risk
of prejudice to the administration of justice may have changed and it may
be that a different decision would be taken.

 

REVIEW RIGHTS

 

If you consider that your request for information is not been properly
handled or if you are otherwise dissatisfied with the outcome of your
request, you may seek an internal review within the OPCC of the issue or
the decision.  I am attaching a copy of our appeal procedure.

 

A request for an internal review should be submitted in writing to the
Interim Chief Executive, OPCC for West Yorkshire, Ploughland House, 62
George Street, Wakefield, WF 1  1DL.

 

If you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of any internal review, you
may complain to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether
your request for information is been dealt with in accordance with the FOI
Act. The Information Commissioner can be contacted at the Office of the
Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire,
SK9 5AF.

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

Julie Reid

 

 

 

Julie Reid

Business Support Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Email:  [8][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[9]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[10]cid:image004.jpg@01D36AC3.337DDD50

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
3. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/
4. mailto:[West Yorkshire PCC request email]
5. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
6. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/
7. mailto:[FOI #360432 email]
8. mailto:[email address]
9. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
10. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/

FOI (WYPCC), West Yorkshire Police and Crime Commissioner

8 Attachments

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED

Dear Mr Wilby

 

Please find attached information in  response to your request under the
Freedom of Information Act.   I am also attaching details of how to
request an internal review.

 

These documents have also been posted to you.

 

Please may I offer my apologies for the delay in being able to provide you
with this response.

 

Regards

 

Julie Reid

 

 

Julie Reid

Governance Manager

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner

Tel:  01924 294000

Email:  [1][email address]

 

Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for West Yorkshire Ploughland
House, 62 George Street, Wakefield, WF1 1DL Visit:
[2]www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk for more information.

 

[3]cid:image004.jpg@01D3AFC5.9A0E1A70

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.westyorkshire-pcc.gov.uk/
3. http://www.helpforvictims.co.uk/

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org