Operation Kalmia - Publication of Final Report

The request was partially successful.

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

In March 2016, the IPCC announced the conclusion of a long running and very expensive managed investigation which was known as Operation Kalmia. The investigation looked into Staffordshire Police's handling of a murder investigation linked to the violent death of Kevin Nunes. This followed serious criticism of Staffordshire Police by the appeal court following the quashing of the convictions of the five men previous convicted of Kevin Nunes murder.

(https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/...)

A number of high ranking police officers, including three now retired Chief Constables, and an Assistant Chief Constable were personally investigated as part of Operation Kalmia. At the conclusion of Operation Kalmia, disciplinary proceedings were recommended in respect of the officers still serving; despite those recommendations individual police forces, and the respective Police and Crime Commissioners blocked any disciplinary action against the Chief Constables. In addition Staffordshire Police allowed the only one Detective Constable heavily implicated in the case to retire on 'ill health' on the eve of him facing disciplinary charges.

Due to the refusal of the various police forces to take formal disciplinary action, and the sudden retire of the junior officer, the public have been denied the opportunity to hear the charges against individual officers and the evidence against them.

At this time no officer has faced a disciplinary panel, therefore the evidence has not been tested before a tribunal, and therefore the allegations have not been proved or disproved.

Despite the IPCC indicating that it intends to publish the Operation Kalmia final report, eighteen months has passed and the document has still not been publically released. One of the reasons quoted by the IPCC for the continued delays in publishing the report is that they have been receiving representations from a number of 'Third Parties'.

The general public, and in particular the family of the victim Kevin Nunes, deserve not only to see the full final report into the failing by Staffordshire Police published, but also to learn who are these 'third parties' that have delayed publication and what are the representation that have been made.

The IPCC is a statutory body set up to be independent from the Police, and therefore it should not be unduly influenced by serving or retired senior police officers or their representatives, particularly if such officer or representative are attempting to suppress information that should be released to the public, and it is in the public interest to do so.

For the reasons set out above I would like to request the following information under the statutory provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

1. The identity of all third parties that have contacted the IPCC to make representations in regards to the proposed publication of the Operation Kalmia final report from the date the report was concluded until the 31st August 2017.

2. The connection that each third party listed at (1) above had to the Operation Kalmia, i.e. person under investigation, solicitor acting for officers under investigation, Police and Crime Commissioner, Association of Chief Police Officers representative etc. etc.

3. A copy of representations email, phone calls or letters received by the IPCC regarding the redaction of any element from the final report before it is published.

4. A copy of any correspondence email, phone notes or letters from the IPCC to third parties listed at (1) above.

5. Copies of any other correspondence between the IPCC and any other parties other than those listed at (1) above , which deals with representations received by the IPCC regarding proposed publication final report.

Should you need any clarification on the above request please contact me .

Yours faithfully,

Mr L. Anderson

!FOI Requests,

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IPCC, your email and any attachments will be assessed logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to acknowledge and respond to.

FOI Team

Dear !FOI Requests,

As you are aware I chose to make this FIO request via this website and not via my personal email address. The reason for that decision was so that interested members of the public could easily access details of the request, subsequent correspondence and any information that is released.

I have since received an initial response (dated 5th December 2017) to my request via my personal email address, in doing this the IPCC are not allowing the wider public to access the material, which I believe that they are entitled to. I would be grateful if you could resend all of the correspondence set on the above date to this website and ensure that all future correspondence in respect of this request is similarly addressed.

Please ensure that any reference to my personal email is removed from any correspondence included in responses via this website.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Anderson

!FOI Requests,

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IPCC, your email and any attachments will be assessed logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to acknowledge and respond to.

FOI Team

!FOI Requests,

Dear Mr Anderson

Thank you for your email.

The information we disclosed to your personal email address has not been sent to the 'What Do They Know' (WDTK) web site for the reasons explained in our email of 5 December. The only way of making files available on the WDTK web is to email them to the address from which the request was sent. The maximum size of file that we can email from the Government Secure Intranet is 10 MB and the information we disclosed to you on 5 December exceeds 30 MB. Therefore, while we would normally respond to the WDTK email address we cannot do so on this occasion and have instead confirmed that the information is available to you via the link we provided.

Only you have permission to access the files on the Egress Switch web site. Files uploaded to Egress Switch cannot be made available to the general public as its purpose is to share information securely with the individual who has been specifically authorised to access the information on that site.

Our response of 5 December 2017 complies with our FOIA obligation to communicate our response to the requester.

Yours sincerely

IPCC

show quoted sections

Dear Independent Police Complaints Commission,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Independent Police Complaints Commission's handling of my FOI request 'Operation Kalmia - Publication of Final Report'.

The IPCC has taken 3 months to provide a response to the FOIA request, this is 3 times the period provided for under the Act.

The material provided included dozens of effectively blank pages with only at large cross and the word redacted. It is impossible to even make out what the redacted information may have been i.e. letter, email, report. The method of redaction is excessive and not in the spirit of the FOIA.

The exemptions have not been qualified to show which section or document they have been applied to. The ICO best practice advocates that individual redactions are clearly marked to indicate which exemptions have been applied. Where qualified exemptions are required failing to identify which redacted sections they apply to prevent the requestor from being able to make a balanced view of the justification for the exemption, or if appropriate to raise reasoned objections.

This FOIA request was made via this website site and I have made it clear that I wished all correspondence and responses to be made via this method. Section 11, FOIA states that the applicants wishes in respect of how to communication should be followed where possible. Whilst the IPCC have suggested that the size of the file prevents them being uploaded to this site, it has not endeavoured to overcome the 10mb limit by simply dividing material into small bundles in order to reduce the individual file size. This method has been successfully used by the IPCC and other public authorities in other similar cases.

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,

Mr L. Anderson

!FOI Requests,

This is an automated email please do not respond to it.

Thank you for your email.

If you have made a request for information to the IPCC, your email and any attachments will be assessed logged and forwarded onto the appropriate department to acknowledge and respond to.

FOI Team

Phil Johnston, Independent Office for Police Conduct

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Anderson

Thank you for your email of 21 December 2017 in which you request an
internal review of our decision on your request (our reference 1006663).

Attached to this email is a letter explaining the outcome of the review
together with one the three documents we have previously disclosed in
response to your request. The other two documents are being sent in a
separate email owing to the limitations on the amount of data we can send
in a single email.

Yours sincerely

IOPC  

show quoted sections

Phil Johnston, Independent Office for Police Conduct

2 Attachments

Dear Mr Anderson,

In reference to your email of 21 December 2017, please find attached two out of the three documents we have previously disclosed in response to your request.

Yours sincerely,

IOPC

show quoted sections

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org