Prosecution over Broken Cross Bridge railway incursion

Ian Jackson made this Freedom of Information request to Wiltshire Constabulary

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Wiltshire Constabulary,

I'm writing with respect to an incident that occurred on the 22nd of September 2009 at Broken Cross railway bridge near Salisbury, reported by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch in their Bulletin 03/2010.

Please tell me:

* Was this matter reported by anyone to the Wiltshire Constabulary ?
* What action did you take ?
* In particular, did you identify the driver ?
* Did you prosecute the driver ?
* If you prosected the driver, for which offences and what was the outcome of the prosecution ?
* If you did not prosecute the driver, could you please tell me what information you have about the process by which the decision not to prosecute was reached ?

For your ease of reference:

* The RAIB bulletin can be found here:
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/bull...
* The bridge at which the crash happened appears to be at WGS84 coordinates 51.095737,-1.760141 which you can type into your favourite online map.

Thanks.

Yours faithfully,

Ian Jackson

Harwood, Christopher, Wiltshire Constabulary

1 Attachment

Dear Ian,

PSA:

<<Acknowledgement.doc>>

Chris Harwood
Force Data Protection
& Freedom of Information Decision Maker
* 01380-733446 (722-343 internal)
* [email address]
* Mail: Chippenham Police Station,
Wood Lane
Chippenham,
Wilts SN15 3DH
......................

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Harwood

Thanks for your acknowledgement. I look forward to your substantive reply.

I notice on re-reading my request that it may be unclear what I mean by "driver". It should be clear from context, but for the avoidance of doubt:

I meant the driver of the road vehicle, not of the train.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Jackson

Harwood, Christopher,

2 Attachments

Dear Ian,

PSA:

<<response letter.doc>> <<Form_135_(November 2009).doc>>

Chris Harwood
Force Data Protection
& Freedom of Information Decision Maker
* 01380-733446 (722-343 internal)
* [email address]
* Mail: Chippenham Police Station,
Wood Lane
Chippenham,
Wilts SN15 3DH
......................

show quoted sections

Dear Wiltshire Constabulary,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Wiltshire Constabulary's handling of my FOI request 'Prosecution over Broken Cross Bridge railway incursion'.

You have refused the request because you claim that the answers to my questions are "personal data". I do not accept this; furthermore you have not explained your refusal adequately.

In more detail:

* The answer to the question "was this matter reported by anyone to the Wiltshire Constabulary" is not personal data. If you think it is, who is it personal data about ? Note that I didn't request the identity of the person making the report. Although I see from the URLs you helpfully provide that the answer to my question is asserted by the Salisbury Journal to be "yes" I wish you to review the decision not to answer this simple question for yourselves.

* The answer to the other five questions are not personal data either. Alternatively, if they are, they are not is not data whose disclosure would prejudice the data protection rights of the vehicle driver.

* Your response is incomplete because you don't state why the exemption applies. Specifically, you don't say (a) about whom the information I'm requesting is personal data (b) which data protection principles would be violated by revealing this information to me and why.

Just to be clear: you seem to be suggesting that in general, the answer to the question "was anyone prosecuted over such-and-such" is FOI-exempt. If that isn't what you're suggesting then please explain why this case is different.

Please answer all of the above points in your review.

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

Yours faithfully,

Ian Jackson

Freedom of Information HQ,

Dear Mr Jackson,

Thank you for your request for an internal review of the above
disclosure. This has now been forwarded to the person responsible for
such reviews who will be in touch shortly.

Chris Harwood
Force Data Protection
& Freedom of Information Decision Maker
* 01380-733446 (722-343 internal)
* [email address]
* Mail: Chippenham Police Station,
Wood Lane
Chippenham,
Wilts SN15 3DH
......................

show quoted sections

Holyoake, Andy,

1 Attachment

<<Review response feb 2010.doc>>

Please see the attached.

Sincerely,
Andy Holyoake
Force Data Protection
& Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

Wood Lane
Chippenham,
Wilts SN15 3DH

show quoted sections

Ian Jackson left an annotation ()

I have appealed the refusal to the Information Commissioner's Office.

My submission included this notice:
DATA PROTECTION: Please feel free to share details of my complaint and the correspondence with anyone and/or to publish it. However please do not reveal my full contact details other than as necessary for dealing with my complaint.

Ian Jackson left an annotation ()

My ICO complaint has been allocated a reference number, FS50298028, and allocated to a case officer.

Ian Jackson left an annotation ()

After intervention from the Information Commissioner, I have received the information I requested. Here is the file I was sent (with the WDTK email address edited out):

PDF: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijack... ; original MS Word format: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijack...

Ben Harris left an annotation ()

A decision notice has now been issued: <http://www.ico.gov.uk/tools_and_resource...>

"During the course of the Commissioner’s investigation the public authority disclosed all of the requested information. As the information has now been provided the Commissioner has not considered whether or not the exemptions cited were properly engaged. However, the public authority’s handling of the request resulted in a procedural breach of section 17(1) of the Act as identified in this Notice."