Dear Ministry of Justice,
I have been reading about abandoned and thrown out cases. Why was
the CPS not able to provide any evidence to Southwark Crown Court
in relation to the several prosecutions prepared in Operation
Triassic, over a 2-3 year period?
What made the sitting Judge allegedly describe the prosecution of
the case as 'scandalous'?
What was the cost to the public purse of operation
It is alleged that operation triassic was initiated and progressed
by a partisan private body, the Insurance Fraud Bureau in
partnership with the London Police. IF this is true what assessment
of the risks of pursuing a prosecution following such possibly
prejudicial collaboration , has the MOJ performed?
Will you share this assessment with the public?
Will the Insurance Fraud Bureau be obliged to pay the compensation
costs arising out of operation Triassic?
Research on the IFB website describes current live joint operations
with police forces up and down the country? Are the MOJ aware of approving of any of these?
Have any indemnities been obtained from the IFB to protect the public purse from adverse costs or compensations awards were any of the current live cases later to be thrown out by a crown court judge?
The IFB website describes their current joint strategy with police forces as being to disrupt 'professional facilitators' without defining any specific criminal activity by such 'professional facilitators'.
WILL the MOJ be seeking details from the IFB on this
matter to prevent further attempts by the IFB to misunderstand or
Dear Sarah Laws,
Thank you for your e-mail, I am writing to advise you that your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information regime and will be treated by the department as Official Correspondence.
It may be helpful if I explain that the Freedom of Information Act (2000) gives individuals and organisations the right of access to all types of recorded information held, at the time the request is received, by public authorities such as the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Section 84 of the Act states that in order for a request for information to be handled as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, it must be for recorded information. For example, a Freedom of Information request would be for a copy of a policy, rather than an explanation as to why we have that policy in place. On occasion, the Ministry of Justice receives requests that do not ask for recorded information, but ask more general questions about, for example, a policy, opinion or a decision.
Since you are asking for 'Why was the CPS not able to provide any evidence to Southwark Crown Court in relation to the several prosecutions prepared in Operation Triassic, over a 2-3 year period?' this will be dealt with as Official Correspondence and you can expect a response from the appropriate area of the department, Official Correspondence, [email address]
If you do have any questions relating specifically to the Freedom of Information or Data Protection Act, please contact the Data Access and Compliance Unit at the following e-mail address: [email address]
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Dear Ministry of Justice,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's handling of my FOI request 'Operation Triassic'.
Please provide a reply
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
Dear ms Laws,
Thank you for your e-mail, as explained to you previously your enquiry does not fall under the Freedom of Information Regime and is being processed by the department a Official Correspondence. As such, you are not entitled to an Internal Review. I have however, passed your e-mail to the business unit who are processing your enquiry and they will update you.
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice|10th Floor|Post Point 10.34
102 Petty France|London|SW1H 9AJ
fax: 020 3334 4455|Goldfax: 0870 739 4188
E-mail: [email address]
Dear Ms Laws - I have been asked to update you on the progress of your enquiry. As you know, colleagues in the Ministry of Justice Data Access and Compliance Unit advised that your correspondence was not a valid FOI request and had to be dealt with as Treat Official correspondence. Your correspondence was in the main a complaint about the Crown Prosecution Service. It may be helpful if I explain that the Ministry of Justice does not deal with prosecution enquiries, and there is nothing in your correspondence that the Ministry of Justice could reply to. Most criminal prosecutions in England and Wales start with a police investigation and then they pass their file to the Crown Prosecution Service who will decide whether or not to prosecute. Policy responsibility for the police rests with the Home Office and the CPS answer their own correspondence. The main policy responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice include sentencing policy, prisons and probation and courts administration, so the Ministry of Justice's responsibilities are largely about after someone has been charged with an alleged criminal offence and not before - so we do not have any responsibility for prosecution. The CPS have their own complaints procedure, but if someone has used this and remains dissatisfied, they can then complain to the Attorney General's Office.
If anyone wishes to make a complaint about a Judge, this would be a matter of the Office for Judicial Complaints - http://judicialcomplaints.judiciary.gov....
With regard to your correspondence, we have therefore sought to transfer it to the CPS for them to reply as there is nothing in this that we could reply to. I understand that the CPS have some concerns that your correspondence is actually a matter for HM Treasury to reply to. I am not sure if this has been resolved yet.
I am sorry we cannot be more helpful.
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
Ministry of Justice
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.Donate Now