Request for Legal Advice Regarding FIO Request 6804

The request is waiting for clarification. If you are Mr L. Anderson, please sign in to send a follow up message.

Dear Staffordshire Police,

Dear Staffordshire Police,

On the 17th March 2016, a FIO application was made to Staffordshire Police requesting the 'Costello Report', this request was later given the reference no 6804 by Staffordshire Police.

On the 27th September 2016, released some documents in response to a separate FIO request given the reference no 7148 by Staffordshire Police. Amongst the document released under the provisions of the FIO Act was a letter dated 27th May 2016, from the Staffordshire and West Midlands Joint Legal Services to the Deputy Chair of the IPCC.

The writer of the letter stated that he/she was advising Deputy Chief Constable Nick Baker regarding the FIO request for the release of the Costello Report, and asking for confirmation that the IPCC agree to the document being disclosed.

The issue of collaboration between the IPCC and Staffordshire Police on the issue of the disclosure of the Costello Report is of significant interest to the public and the matter as attracted media attention. The letter referred to above indicates that dialogue between the two public bodies took place at a very high level.

Under the provisions of the FIO Act, I would like to request the following information:-

1. The date that first D.C.C. Nick Baker contacted Staffordshire and West Midlands Joint Legal Service for advice concerning the FIO request for Costello Report.

Yours faithfully,

Mr L. Anderson

Staffordshire Police

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request. As both of your
recently received requests are on the same topic I have aggregated these
under the same log reference number,provided here.
You will receive a response in due course.
Kind regards,
Roger Randle
Freedom of Information Local Decision Maker
Central Disclosure Unit
Staffordshire Police

show quoted sections

Dear Staffordshire Police,

Thank you for your quick response. My requests are made on an individual basis and should be considered individually and answered individually.

The attempt to aggregate several individual requests into a one large request will merely justify Staffordshire Police attempting to claim that dealing with them will take too much time.... in addition aggregating multiple requests will slow dowthe time taken to deal with individual requests and complicate what would otherwise be a simply request. Unless of course Staffordshire Police is deliberately seeking grounds to refuse releasing information which may prove to be uncomfortable for the organisation or individuals.

I would be grateful if you could respond to my request to have my individually made FIO requests dealt with as individual requests as soon as possible.

Yours faithfully,

Mr L. Anderson

Freedom of Information, Staffordshire Police

Dear Mr Anderson

In response to your requests being considered individually and answered individually the ICO (Information Commissioner Office) have released a statement regarding aggregating requests. Please see below for statement:

Aggregation of requests
39 . When a public authority is estimating whether the appropriate limit is likely to be exceeded, it can include the costs of complying with two or more requests if the conditions laid out in regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations can be satisfied. Those conditions require the requests to be:
- made by one person, or by different persons who to appear to the public authority to be acting in concert in pursuance of a campaign.
- Made for the same or similar information; and
- received by the public authority within any period of 60 consecutive working days.

Two or more requests:
41 . Public authorities can aggregate two or more separate requests.
42 . They should also note that multiple requests within a single item of correspondence are separate request for the purpose of Section 12.
43 . Therefore a public authority should ensure that each request can be aggregated in accordance with the conditions laid out in the Fees Regulations. Any unrelated requests should be dealt with separately for the purposes of determining whether the appropriate limit is exceeded.

Please see below link for full ICO statement.

https://ico.org.uk/media/1199/costs_of_c...

Regards
Darius Sanghori

OFFICIAL

Central Disclosure Unit
Staffordshire Police HQ
P.O. Box 3167
Stafford
ST16 9JZ
T:switchboard 101
T:direct dial 01785 232195
E:[Staffordshire Police request email]

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information, Staffordshire Police

Dear Mr Anderson

 

You have sent in emails requesting the following information:

 

REQUEST 1

The earliest date that DCC Nick Baker was informed of the FIO request for
the Costello Report.

The date that first DCC Nick Baker contacted Staffordshire and West
Midlands joint legal services for advice concerning the FIO request for
Costello Report.

 

REQUEST 2

The earliest date that Deputy Chief Constable Baker or any other ACPO
officer was first notified of a FIO request in respect of the ‘Costello
Report’.

The earliest date that sought advice over FIO requests in respect of the
‘Costello Report’ from the West Midlands joint legal service.

 

Please can you clarify that request 1 relates specifically to previous FOI
log 6804 and the dates requested will relate to that log.  Can you clarify
that request 2 is a refined request from log 7365 and the dates requested
will relate to that log.

 

Please note these requests have been aggregated.

 

This request is on hold until a response is received from you.

 

 

Regards

 

Tracey Brindley

Freedom of Information Decision Maker

Central Disclosure Unit

Staffordshire Police HQ

PO Box 3167

Stafford

ST16 9JZ

T:  Switchboard 101

T:  Direct dial 01785 232195

E:  [1][Staffordshire Police request email]

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[Staffordshire Police request email]

Dear Freedom of Information,

Thank you for your correspondence. It is apparent from your comments that this request is causing some confusion given the previous request no 7365. To remove any confusion I have amended and reduced my earlier request no 7365, therefore tho particular request is effectively a duplicate, therefore I would like to withdraw and close this request. To avoid any future confusion please ensure any requests for clarification etc are linked with the earlier request 7365.

Please acknowledge that this request has been marked as closed/withdrawn.

Yours sincerely,

Mr L. Anderson