Dear Ministry of Defence,

On 16 May 2022, in answer to Parliamentary Question 2317 on investigations into sexual offences against children at the Army Foundation College (https://questions-statements.parliament....), the minister replied that the suspects in one investigation were three members of staff.

In respect of each of these suspects, can you please tell me a) whether the investigation found evidence of wrongdoing and b) what action was taken?

Thank you in advance,

David Gee

Dear Ministry of Defence,

Can you please let me know when you think you'll be able to reply to this request?

Thank you,

David Gee

Hello

Do you have an update on this, please?

It's been two months since the request was made. If you need longer, please do say so, perhaps with an explanation if possible.

Thank you

David Gee

Hello

Thank you for the reply. Can you please tell me when I can expect to hear from you next?

Thanks.

David Gee

Dear Ministry of Defence,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Sexual abuse investigations at the Army Foundation College'.

I don't want to escalate this, because when I have made an information request of the army in the past, it has usually been dealt with within the time limit, but I am doing so this time for the reasons that follow.

I made my request on 29 May, more than two months ago:
- After a month I had not had a response so sent a follow-up message asking for an update.
- I then received a response quickly to say that the response to my request was taking longer than usual, though I wasn't offered a reason, expected date, or commitment to keep me informed.
- After the second month, I'd still heard nothing, so I sent a further follow-up message asking for an update.
- Again, I had a quick reply saying only that the response was taking 'longer than anticipated', and again without a reason, an expected date for a response, or a commitment to keep me informed.
- Ten days ago I asked for an expected date for a response and have not had a reply.

I don't mind waiting if there's a good reason, though I haven't been given one, and my two requests for some kind of expected timescale have gone unanswered for some time now, hence this request for a formal review.

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

I hope you can sort this out - thank you for your time.

David Gee

Dear Army Sec-Group (MULTIUSER),

I am still waiting for a response to this request made in May. The delay, at around three months now, has not been explained. My request for an internal review has gone unacknowledged and, despite the 20 working day deadline for it, also unanswered.

Can you please provide the information I asked for, or tell me when you expect to be able to do so.

Thank you

David Gee

Dear Ministry of Defence,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Defence's handling of my FOI request 'Sexual abuse investigations at the Army Foundation College'.

First, thank you for your reply of 18 October 2023. I appreciate that it takes time to reply to these requests, so it is with some reluctance that I am asking for an internal review.

The grounds for this are as follows:

A. Handling

You have apologised for allowing the response to become four months overdue, and for not informing me along the way. I don’t wish to complain about that, but I don't understand why my first request for an internal review, made on 7 August, was not accepted.

I would like this internal review to find out why my first request for an internal review was not accepted.

B. Information held or not held

My request asked for information on the outcome of a single investigation into three staff at the Army Foundation College suspected of sexual abuse of child recruits in 2021. (I know from other reliable sources that one such suspect was convicted earlier this year, so the true number of suspects must at least be greater than zero.) Your reply says that you do not hold the information on the outcome of this investigation, and also that you can’t give me the information.

I would like this internal review to clarify whether the information is held.

C. Reasons for refusal

Turning to the substance of my request, you have argued that providing the number of victims or perpetrators of child sexual offences at a military training centre would risk disclosing their identities. I find that difficult to accept. Disclosing the annual total figure will not reveal any identifiable information about individuals or their cases, nor would it be possible for anyone to identify an individual through the release of such a global figure. The MoD already publishes annual total figures for sexual offences investigated and prosecuted in its annual release on Sexual Offences in the Service Justice System, and the information now requested of you is not qualitatively different. Further, in statistical releases, any genuine disclosure risk may be managed by referring to small numbers of cases as ‘fewer than five’, or by rounding larger numbers to the nearest five or ten. (As you may know, North Yorkshire Police recently disclosed by FOI request the number of sexual abuse cases at the Army Foundation College over a 13-month period: 9 cases of rape, 2 of sexual assault, and 2 of voyeurism.)

I would like this internal review to evaluate whether the information asked for in the present request should have been released, on the grounds that it does not differ significantly from the MoD's common practice of publishing similar information annually, and whether rounding safeguards could be applied if genuinely necessary.

You have also argued that releasing the number of suspected victims (but not perpetrators) could discourage victims from coming forward. The opposite may be more plausible: that releasing the figures could lend victims more confidence to raise a complaint, by making clear that they would not be alone in doing so. I believe that that should be weighed in the balance.

Finally, I believe that a strong public interest lies in making public the extent of alleged and proven sexual abuse at a military training centre designed for adolescent children.

Please can you acknowledge this request for internal review and reply within the statutory timeframe. If this is not going to be possible, I hope you can tell me so, and offer an alternative date for a response.

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

Thank you,

David Gee

Dear Paul Daly

Thank you for this considered response to my request for an internal review, and in particular for taking into account the reasons that I set out.

Regarding my original request for information about investigations into alleged sexual offences by staff against child recruits at the Army Foundation College in 2021, my understanding of the outcome of those investigations, as expressed in your letter, is that:

1) No investigation that year concerned three suspected members of staff;

2) One investigation that year led to the prosecution of one member of staff;

3) Other investigations into other members of staff might also have taken place that year, but this information is technically outside the scope of my original request due to its wording; and

4) Based on the answers to the recent Parliamentary Questions to which you link in your letter, the MoD has resolved not to reveal such information if asked.

I am not expecting a reply - I simply want to set out my understanding of what you have told me, including for anyone who visits this page in the future.

With thanks again for your time,

David Gee