Dear Department of Justice (Northern Ireland),

During a recent judicial review your Director of Pensions was found to have acted unlawfully when she refused a banding given by an IMR (Band 4). In her evidence to the court she stated that the process she carries out for the IMR and the SMP where the same.

Therefore can you confirm the following:

1 How many times between 2019 - 2023 has the IMR been provided with a recommendation from NIPB Staff relating to the "Banding."

2 How many times has the IMR given a banding to an applicant that has been changed as a result of input from the Director of pensions or any of the Northern Ireland Policing Board staff?

2 If so how is this recorded?

3 How are the applicants informed of this change?

4 How are these documents stored?

5 Please provide the guide to this process that staff use ( Not the flow chat published on your website) but the actual document that governs this process

6 Please provide the method by which the Doctor completed the report and delivery to the staff (email, internal system, word doc saved etc)

7 Please provide the method by which the Doctor receives the report back (email, internal system, word doc saved etc)

Yours faithfully,

David Kitely

Dear Department of Justice (Northern Ireland),

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Department of Justice (Northern Ireland)'s handling of my FOI request 'Pensions Directorate and the Independent Medicial Referee'.

I have been contacted by a retired member of the RUC/PSNI who have provided material that would contradict the answers provided in this FOI.

1. The doctor whose work was called into question prior to the Chadwick and Harveson Judicial review informed the DOJ NI in March 2022 that he could not make a decision that they "viewed as unlawful."

The Doctor in this case was asked to change his original IMR report and certificate from a 4 to a 2. He refused.

2. Between 2018 and 2023 there were two doctors who worked as SMPS and IMRS. During this period they have had their decisions/reports/certificates changed. In each case they have been reduced. I have material that indicates this is carried out during the quality assurance exercise. The DOJ arrange the IMR appointment. The IMR received the file 1 hour before the appointment. They complete the report and the cert. It is then sent to the DOJ. The DOJ send it to NIPB. The NIPB then discuss this matter and send the report back to the doctor with annotations that are initialled and asking the doctor to review decisions. This was routine for those 5 years. I have evidence of this. I would request this answer is reviewed and a new one issued.

3. As above this answer is completely inaccurate. There are emails between both organisations indicating that opposite of this. While the contact may not be direct the DOJ are aware of the passing of annotated reports to the IMR.

4. The applicants have never been informed of this. This is indicated by the NIPBs own evidence during the judicial review. Bandings have been changed during the IMR process. Please review this answer.

5. Can you confirm if the DOJ NI actually ever have access to the appeal applicants file?

6. There is another detailed internal process used by staff that your are refusing to reveal. Please provide this.

7. Thank you for the answer.

8. This is completely incorrect. During the Quality assurance exercise the NIPB sends reports back to the IMR with annotations with suggested corrections. Please detail this process and the DOJs oversite of it.

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

Yours faithfully,

David Kitely

Dear DOJ FOI Mailbox,

REFERENCE: FOI\24\58

The reply was received 31st May 2024.

Yours sincerely,

David Kitely