the disbanding of the MPS (DPS) 'deep undercover unit

P Swift made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

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 refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Dear Sir or Madam,

please provide me with a copy of the report compiled by a senior MPS officer in respect of the MPS 'deep undercover unit' associated with police discipline, complaints and / or corruption investigations. The report apparently recommended that the unit be disbanded.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear P. Swift

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009080005842
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/08/2009. I note you seek
access to the following information:

* "Dear Sir or Madam, please provide me with a copy of the report
compiled by a senior MPS officer in respect of the MPS 'deep
undercover unit' associated with police discipline, complaints and /
or corruption investigations.
* The report apparently recommended that the unit be disbanded. Yours
faithfully, P Swift ."

Your request will now be considered in accordance with the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (the Act). You will receive a response within
the statutory time scale of 20 working days as defined by the Act,
subject to the information not being exempt or containing a reference
to a third party. In some circumstances the MPS may be unable to
achieve this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and
given a revised time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your
right of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact Rozmarie Loizou at the above e-mail address, quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Rozmarie Loizou
Administrative Support Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied
with the decision you may make application to the Information
Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has
been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift,

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2009080005842
I write in connection with your request for information dated 27 August
2009. I note that you seek access to the following information:

* A copy of the report compiled by a senior MPS officer in respect of
the MPS 'deep undercover unit' associated with police discipline,
complaints and / or corruption investigations. The report apparently
recommended that the unit be disbanded.

This email is to inform you that, based upon the details you have
provided, I cannot identify any specific records / documents that will
satisfy your request. To enable the MPS to meet your request, could
you please provide this office with further information about the
report to which you refer.
After receiving your reply, your request will then be considered and
you will receive the information requested within the statutory
timescale of 20 working days, subject to the information not being
exempt or containing a reference to a third party.

However, if the requested additional information has not been received
by 11 December 2009, I will assume you no longer wish to proceed with
this request and will treat it as withdrawn.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right
of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
write or contact me on telephone number 0207 230 5204 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely,

Damion Baird
Information Manager
Directorate of Professional Standards
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think
the decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your
request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is
to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your
decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues
and assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision
of the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act)
regarding access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS
to have the decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied
with the decision you may make application to the Information
Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has
been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information
Commissioner please visit their website at
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

please refer to the e-mail I sent your head of department:

[email address]

today (22.09.2006) @ 6.11pm in which I have identified the rank and name of an officer who I understand will be able to provide additional information and confirm the existence of the report.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Dear Sir or Madam,

To assist further, the report is unlikely to be in respect of CIB2, who deal with lower level complaints and tend to be uniformed officers. Similarly I do not believe (but cannot discount) the report to be in relation to CIB3 (anti corruption command), that deals with the organised corruption of police officers and whose teams are understood to be more professional than CIB2.

The report was likely complied from 2003 to 2005 and submitted to Ian Blair. The report / review was apparently commissioned because the ‘deep undercover unit’ was considered:
to be ‘unattributable’ (unaccountable?),
to have their own agenda
Not to be properly supervised

My ref/21:04(2)

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Damion Baird
Information Manager
Directorate of Professional Standards

Dear Mr Baird,

I understand that this request is overdue a response. By law, you should have answered promptly. You have not given a legal reason why extra time is needed. You appear to be breaking the law as you have not replied by 20 October 2009.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'the disbanding of the MPS (DPS) 'deep undercover unit'.

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

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

Please note that additional information, sent to assist, was provided by e-mail to the Head of Public Access Officce and Data Protection, Merilyne Davies:

Head of Public Access Officce and Data Protection
MPS Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/introductio...

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009100004693

I write in connection with your letter dated 21 October 2009 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your
request for information relating to:

* Original FOI case number: 2009080005842.

The review will be conducted in accordance to the MPS's complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 18 November
2009.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009080005842

I write in response to your request for information dated 27 August 2009.
I apologise for the delay in responding to your request and any
inconvenience caused. I note that you seek access to the following
information:

* A copy of the report compiled by a senior MPS officer in respect of
the MPS 'deep undercover unit' associated with police discipline,
complaints and / or corruption investigations. The report apparently
recommended that the unit be disbanded.

I wrote to you on 11 September 2009 to obtain further details about the
report requested. On 22 September 2009, you wrote to me providing details
of an officer that you understood would be able to assist with your
enquiry. You then provided further information to me on 15 October 2009
about the report subject of your request.

Following receipt of your emails of 22 September 2009 and 15 October 2009,
I have conducted searches to locate information relevant your request.
These searches failed to locate information relevant to your application.

DECISION
In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000,
the requested information cannot be provided as it is not held by the MPS.

I have also considered your email sent on 22 September 2009 and believe
that this communication would normally preclude me from answering your
request. I believe this to be the case as your email could reasonably be
classified as obsessive or intended to harass. I base my decision upon the
volume and nature of previous correspondence received by the MPS connected
to the officer named in your email of 22 September 2009. I have
accordingly not contacted this officer for this reason. Please note that
the MPS will consider classifying any future applications that concern
this officer, where there is no reasonable justification for their
inclusion, as vexatious.

Section 14(1) states:

Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request
for information if the request is vexatious.

The Information Commissioner has published guidance upon vexatious
requests. I have provided an internet link to this document below.

Information Commissioner Guidance: Vexatious or Repeated Requests
http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of
complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write
to me at [email address] or contact me upon telephone number
0207 230 5204 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Damion Baird
Information Manager
Directorate of Professional Standards
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaints
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1TR

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

I refer you to my e-mail of today. The officer to whom you refer is the author of the document. Kindly ensure it is released.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift

* Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009100004693

Further to our letter of 22 October 2009, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

* FOI original case number: 2009080005842

I hope to complete your review no later than 4 December 2009. Should there
be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as
possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Sir or Madam,

2009080005842

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)'s handling of my FOI request 'the disbanding of the MPS (DPS) 'deep undercover unit'.

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

I shall post further information shortly. I anticipate an apology in relation to the association of the term 'vexatious' with regard to my request. This is simply a device being used by the MPS PAO to avoid release. I am mindful:
• you failed to provide a response in 40 days
• you failed to provide a response to my Subject Access request with 40 days
• you have failed to address inaccuracies in the information you hold about me
• your office has circulated at least one false statement about me (as evidenced by an MPS document I possess). The statement I believe results from my meeting with PAO staff who it would appear, failed to keep a formal record of the meeting yet attribute false statements to me as a result of it.
for the record, as evidenced by an e-mail I have sent the MPS PAO last week, the author of the document I am requesting (the review of the MPS ‘deep undercover unit’ that recommended it be disbanded) in known to me, is a serving MPS officer and therefore locating the report should prove very easy.
Should my reason for my requesting the data be required, if only to further undermine your ‘vexatious’ label, kindly say so.
Please ensure any response is via this site.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009100004693

Further to our letter of 17 November 2009, I have unfortunately been
unable to meet the response time provided to you in relation to:

* FOI original case number: 2009080005842

I am still ensuring the relevant searches are being conducted for this
request, and I hope to complete your review no later than 29 December
2009. Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update
you as soon as possible.

I do apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I made my request on 27th August 2009 i.e. three and a half months ago! I have already written that this request is overdue a response. By law, you should have answered promptly. You have not given a legal reason why extra time is needed. You appear to be breaking the law as you have not replied by 20 October 2009.”
On each occasion I appear to be fobbed off. The report should be easy to track down. It was complied by DCI Kibble now of Merton police station, stephen.kibble[@]met.police.uk
The unit I am referring to is not the DPS, not the anti-corruption command (that I understand DCI Kibble worked for at the time) but the deep undercover covert i.e. nobody knows of their existence, where they're based or what vehicles they use. They are said to use assumed identities and may well have been someone like benefits, regional or other.
I am not referring to CIB3 which deals with the organised corruption of police officers or CIB2 which tends to be uniform officers dealing with lower level complaints around assault, deaths in cells, recidivist police officers that are bad pennies as in a violent punchy way.
I am seeking the report to say that the deep, deep undercover unit should be disbanded. Apparently DCI Kibble was asked to do a review of the unit and the rationale behind this was that they were unattributable, did have their own agendas, they weren't properly supervised and should be in effect brought back under the direct command of the SU commander.
It appears likely the report was prepared for Ian Blair for whom I understand DCI Kibble was working at the end of 2003, all of 2004 into the beginning of 2005.
I trust the above is sufficient information for you to be able to locate the data without further delay and provide same. Should you require further information, please specific what is required and I will do my utmost to assist.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

john left an annotation ()

Wow good luck with this there trying to fob alot of people off not verry wise.

if you dont get what you wish file a complaint with the information commissioner

Philip Swift left an annotation ()

thank you.
a senior MPS Detective recently said “it's not always easy to get material from the DPS or from the Met sometimes” so I understand the issue is widespread and well known internally.
P Swift

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009100004693

Further to our letter of 4 December 2009, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint dated 21 October 2009 concerning:

* FOIA original case number - 2009080005842.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has
decided to:

* Uphold the original decision in terms of Section 1(1)(a) (confirm
whether information is held)

* Uphold applicants procedural complaint regarding Section 10 (Time for
compliance)

REASON FOR DECISION

I would first like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in
providing a final response for your review and thank you for your
patience.

In terms of the remit of my role, as FOIA reviewer I am only able to
comment on your requests under the Freedom of Information Act. My
correspondence will therefore focus on the elements of your four letters
of complaint for this one request (dated 21/10/09, 10/11/09, 10/11/09,
17/11/09 and 10/12/09), which deal with your FOIA question only. Subject
Access Requests you refer to (which may or may not have been received by
the MPS) will not be captured by this response as it would be
inappropriate to do so. This is because a response under the FOIA is, in
effect, a response to the world.

Should you wish to discuss any complaints relating a personal Subject
Access Request you may have applied for, please put the full details of
your complaint in writing to:

Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

Complaint regarding 'time for compliance' (Section 10 of the Act)
Your original request was received by the MPS on the 27 August 2009. On 11
September 2009 Mr. Baird confirmed that based on the information you had
provided, he could not locate any information pertinent to your request.
On 22 September 2009 you provided further information in respect of your
request to assist us in locating information which may be held. You should
therefore have received your final response by the 20 October 2009. It is
regretful that you did not receive the response to your FOI request by
this statutory deadline.

I also take this opportunity to apologise that you did not receive an
update on the status of your case explaining that the MPS would be unable
to meet the statutory deadline, or an estimated date of completion for
when the response would be ready.

I find that in terms of the processing of your request and the MPS failing
to respond within the statutory time frame, there was indeed a breach of
Section 10 the Act (time for compliance). Accordingly I would like to take
this opportunity to apologise for the delay you have experienced and hope
to reassure you that the MPS take compliance with the Act very seriously
and are working hard to promote good practice in regard to the processing
of requests.

I would like to assure you that the MPS is continually striving hard to
ensure statutory deadlines are met and enquiries are responded to as soon
as possible. We are working towards this goal whilst ensuring the
operational policing needs of London are not affected.

To ensure good practice, I have contacted and advised the Department
concerned to reiterate that applicants should be updated in good time if
there is a possibility their request deadline will not be met for any
reason.

Review of original response (dated 9 November 2009)
To complete this review, full searches for the requested information were
conducted. I uphold the original decision provided to you in full.

* I can confirm the information you have requested is not held.

I have considered your email dated 10 November 2009 (which is the second
of your four emails of complaint regarding this FOIA request). Although in
this case I have conducted this internal review and provided a full
response, I believe this email could reasonably be classified as obsessive
or intended to harass. I too base my decision upon the volume and nature
of previous correspondence received by the MPS connected to the officer
named in your email of 22 September 2009. Please note that the MPS will
consider classifying any future applications that concern this officer
(where there is no reasonable justification for their inclusion) as
vexatious.

Section 14(1) of the Act provides:
(1) Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a
request for information if the request is vexatious.

I also take this opportunity to refer you to the ICO Charter for
responsible FOIA requests:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/l...

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information
Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

S. Strong
FOIA Complaints Officer
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the
decision is incorrect?

You have the right to require the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to
review their decision.

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to
discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to
telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision
letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and
assist with any problems.

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of
the MPS made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) regarding
access to information you can lodge a complaint with the MPS to have the
decision reviewed.

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 40 working days.
The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with the MPS if you are still dissatisfied with
the decision you may make application to the Information Commissioner for
a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.

For information on how to make application to the Information Commissioner
please visit their website at www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk.
Alternatively, phone or write to:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Phone: 01625 545 700

show quoted sections

P Swift left an annotation ()

there is no intention to be considered 'vexatious', I have responded to the obstruction that I have encountered by providing further information to assist you. Indeed, with regard to naming DCI Kibble it will be noted that I have sought to avoid this however, your repeated hurdles have have caused me to identify the author of the document.

it is evident the MPS do not intend to embrace openness. I have no doubt your response is simply a device, a further hurdle for me to overcome.

I shall appeal to the ICO.

in the meantime, I invite others to try to secure the release of this information.

P Swift left an annotation ()

I am concerned that this is apparently unavailable.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ex...

P Swift left an annotation ()

I have received the following from the MPS:

From: <Angela.Day(at)met.police.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:45:44 -0000
To: PSwift
Subject: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

Dear Mr Swift,

I have recently read communication between yourself and Damion Baird of DPS information unit regarding a Freedom of Information Act request in relation to a report allegedly compiled by DCI Steve Kibble and submitted recommending that a unit be disbanded. I understand that any such report has not been supplied to you in line with your request under the act. Within your email dated 10/11/09, you understood this to mean that DCI Kibble may have 'lied' to you about the report's existence. You formed this conclusion as you were confident that he had previously disclosed to you during a conversation that such a report had been completed.

Please could you kindly confirm whether you are raising a complaint against DCI Kibble in relation to whether you believe he previously misled you about the report's creation.

If you do intend to complain about this officer's actions, it is necessary that you provide me with considerable more detail on the allegation in order to commence an investigation. Within your email to Damion Baird, you alluded to a phone conversation in which DCI Kibble confirmed that the report existed. You stated that you are able to provide proof of this conversation. Please could you confirm the date / time, detail and circumstances of this conversation and whether there were any witnesses to or record of the exchange.

If you are claiming that DCI Kibble lied to you during this conversation about the report, it would be necessary to prove the contents of this conversation. If the allegation is later put to DCI Kibble in order to obtain his response, it will be necessary to have objective evidence of what was said, if the allegation is to be capable of proof.

I thank you in anticipation of your assistance with this matter. Please could you kindly respond by Thursday 21st January 2010, otherwise I will assume that you do not intend to raise a complaint about DCI Kibble on this matter.

Thank you

Angela

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I shall attempt to respond more fully by Monday 11th
I am keeping an open mind about who is misrepresenting facts and the intentions / objectives of the mps.
Dci kibble has disclosed the existence of such a report
I understand it was the very unit reported upon that subsequently investigated dci kibble
This 'relationship' came to light when an MPS officer reported dci kibble for allegedly advising that my name was linked to Abelard
But all this will be known to the dps
It likely suits your purpose for me to make an allegation
I question your motives and intentions
Given your interest and association with Mr Baird, surely the appropriate action, if only to comply with FOIA, is to ask DCI Kibble if there exists such a report, if so where it is and provide it
Please confirm this obvious means to satisfy my foia request has been undertaken
If dci kibble has told you there is no such report then it appears he has misled me.
In the alternative it appears I am being mislead by others in the mps and the complaint would need to be constructed appropriately
Please advise appropriately

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk

Dear Ms Day,

I refer you to my response of 7th January 2010 and remind you that I continue to await your response. For the sake of clarity:

1. Please advise whether or not you or anyone within the MPS, if only to comply with FOIA, has asked DCI Kibble whether or not there exists such a report.

2. If the question has not been asked of the alleged author of the report, DCI Kibble, please advise why not.

Assuming the question has been asked of DCI Kibble,

3. If DCI Kibble confirmed that such a report DOES exist, why has it not been supplied to me?

4. If DCI Kibble confirmed that such a report DOES NOT exist please advise the explanation DCI Kibble gave for informing me that he wrote such a report.

It appears inappropriate for me to be making any formal complaint until such time as I understand about whom and what I should complain. I would have expected you to have satisfied yourself that such a report does or does not exist before approaching me in this fashion; inviting me to complain about a senior MPS Officer.

It is apparent someone within the MPS is misrepresenting facts to me. This is behavior I have encountered previously, I therefore intend to proceed cautiously, appropriately.

my thanks in anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

Sent: 11 January 2010 09:25
To: casework[@]ico.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Appeal

Dear Sirs,
I wish to appeal the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) decision with regard to my FOIA request , MPS Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009100004693. My full request can be located at:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_disba...

I have taken exception to the use of ‘vexatious’ and the term ‘obsessive’ by the MPS; it is inappropriate. The FACT is that DCI Kibble is the only link I have to much of the information held by the MPS that I am seeking both via FOIA and Subject Access. You will be aware that the MPS are in breach of my Subject Access rights (your ref: Case Reference Number FS50286906). The MPS are doing all that they can to keep me from data.

I have asked for the report (disbanding of the MPS deep under cover unit) in the belief that DCI Kibble wrote the report. It will be noted from the history of my FOIA request that I have kept DCI Kibble’s name form the request until such time as it became obvious without being specific, without disclosing the officer’s name, it would be necessary for me to provide the author’s name (DCI Kibble) to ensure the MPS had no excuse for not locating the data.

Below you will also find the latest that I have received from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards (complaints department). It will be noted that the MPS appear more concerned with pursuing DCI Kibble for a disciplinary offence, that their interest with regard to my FOIA request is limited yet they wish further data in relation to the officer’s disclosures to me. It is the MPS who are causing issues in respect of which DCI Kibble is associated, for the matter to be drawn out.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk
Sent: 11 January 2010 14:45
To: Philip Swift
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

Sir,

I have contacted the Public Access Office to ascertain the progress and status of your ongoing FOIA request. I will reiterate what they have already told you, namely, that any such report allegedly written by DCI Kibble is not held by the MPS. I am unable to confirm how this has been established by the PAO, but they are categorical that it does not exist.

From my perspective, I would like to confirm how you intend to proceed with regards to any alleged misrepresentations on the subject by DCI Kibble. I will refer you to my last email. Please confirm whether you intend to raise a public complaint in relation to what you have apparently been advised by DCI Kibbble. Further, if you do wish to raise the content of any conversation / communication as a public complaint, please kindly provide with verification to support your allegation. I will remind that you that I will be unable to prove what has allegedly been said by DCI KIbble if you are unable to provide me with an independent record of the exchange or third party witnesses.

I await your response.

Thank you very much for this clarification,

Angela

Angela Davies
Detective Sergeant
Angela.Davies[@]met.police.uk
Team 2, DPS Borough Support (SW)
Directorate of Professional Standards
Jubilee House (Third Floor)
Putney Bridge Road
Putney SW15 2PD

Dear Madam,

a. Why do you need evidence from me of what DCI Kibble has said?
b. Surely, in the course of progressing my FOIA request DCI Kibble has been approached; yes or no?

If DCI Kibble states that such a report was complied, he will likely be able to direct you to a copy and in turn the data can be released. Furthermore, it will follow that DCI Kibble has told me the truth and I will have no complaint. Alternatively, if DCI Kibble states there was no such report, this will contradict his statement to me and the time etc. spent on the subject would have been a waste on all our parts. It would be my intention to progress a complaint.

At present, given what I have been told by DCI Kibble, I do not accept the PAO’s response. I suspect the PAO are misrepresenting the situation.

I refer you to my email of 7th January 2010 and remind you that I continue to await your response. For the sake of clarity:

1. Please advise whether or not you or anyone within the MPS, if only to comply with FOIA, has asked DCI Kibble whether or not there exists such a report.

2. If the question has not been asked of the alleged author of the report, DCI Kibble, please advise why not.

Assuming the question has been asked of DCI Kibble,

3. If DCI Kibble confirmed that such a report DOES exist, why has it not been supplied to me?
4. If DCI Kibble confirmed that such a report DOES NOT exist please advise the explanation DCI Kibble gave for informing me that he wrote such a report

Your remark “I will remind that you that I will be unable to prove what has allegedly been said by DCI KIbble (sic) if you are unable to provide me with an independent record of the exchange or third party witnesses” is unnecessary and appears to be flawed. I refer you to my questions above; the most obvious, straightforward way to prove what DCI Kibble has said is by asking him.

c. Please advise why you appear unwilling to ask / answer the questions above.
d. If the questions above have not been asked, please confirm that my asking the questions of DCI Kibble will not prejudice any enquiry and that
e. DCI Kibble is not restricted from speaking with me.

In responding to the above issues, for the sake of clarity, pleas could you use the numbering system I have adopted.

My thanks in anticipation.

Yours faithfully,

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

response from DPS:

From: Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk
Sent: 15 January 2010 08:47
To: P Swift
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit
Importance: High

Sir,

In reference to your below email and adopting the lettering / numbering system requested, I reply as follows:

A.) I need evidence of what DCI Kibble may have said because without any third party evidence, it will not be possible to prove your recollection of the conversation as compared with any recollection that DCI Kibble may have. If they differ, it will not be possible to prove whose recollection is accurate.

B.) I am not in a position to confirm how the PAO progressed your FOIA request and thereby established that the report in question was not held by the MPS.

I am unable to answer your questions as to whether DCI Kibble has been approached. The fact remains I need to ascertain whether you believe DCI Kibble has in some way been untruthful and accordingly whether you wish to raise this as a complaint. From the start, I ask whether you have any proof or record of your conversation with him as this would evidently be instrumental in seeking to investigate and verify your allegation. Without such evidence, I would have to rely upon DCI Kibble's recollection of any conversation with you. If it contradicts your account, I would not be able to prove the matter one way or the other. I now ask you to confirm whether you are able to provide such evidence. If you cannot, I will assume that you are unwilling to supply it for consideration in any future investigation and will consider the matter without seeking further confirmation on this point.

1.) Already answered at point B.) above.

2.) I am not at liberty to discuss this matter with you. The PAO are experienced and practiced in progressing FOIA requests. I cannot confirm the sources or means whereby they verify matters. Whether DCI Kibble has been approached is not for me to disclose. This would be a matter for you to take up with the Information Commissioner's Office as an appeal against the PAO's response.

3.) / 4.) Not applicable in light of answer at point 2.)

I am not going to engage in further discussion or debate on this matter. I have explained very clearly the information that I know and my wish to establish simply whether you are making a complaint against DCI Kibble following any alleged misrepresentations that he may have made to you. I ask you to confirm whether you are making a complaint and also whether you are willing to provide me with a record of the conversation (to which you have consistently alluded) with DCI Kibble in order that I can conduct a meaningful investigation. If you do not clarify your position, I will assume that at this time you are not seeking to raise a public complaint.

Yours sincerely,

Angela

P Swift left an annotation ()

how strange, Angela has stated

"I have contacted the Public Access Office to ascertain the progress and status of your ongoing FOIA request. I will reiterate what they have already told you, namely, that any such report allegedly written by DCI Kibble is not held by the MPS. I am unable to confirm how this has been established by the PAO, but they are categorical that it does not exist."

yet she is not prepared to ask them whether they asked the alleged author of the report where the document is. Similarly Angela is not prepared to ask the author where the report is.

I question why not.

From: P Swift
Sent: 15 January 2010 13:32
To: 'Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk'
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

Dear Ms Day,

At this point in time MY issue is with regard to the release of the report, to the provision of information I have requested. I have been advised by DCI Kibble that the report was compiled and I wish sight of it. Where is the report? If there is no report, then it appears DCI Kibble has misrepresented facts to me. If the report exists then the MPS have misrepresented facts to me. About whom should I complain?

I have asked straightforward questions in an attempt to understand what has occurred and in turn about whom I should complain, should I chose to do so. Why am I obstructed by you, or my questions ignored; why are you selective in your responses?

You are in a position to confirm how the PAO progressed my FOIA request and thereby established that the report in question was not held by the MPS; you are employed by the MPS and it is a simple matter of you asking the question of the MPS PAO or FOIA team. Why have you not done so?

You are able to answer your questions as to whether DCI Kibble has been approached; you could ask the MPS PAO or FOIA team or you could ask DCI Kibble.

At this point in time I do not accept that “the fact remains I need to ascertain whether you believe DCI Kibble has in some way been untruthful”; why do you need to ascertain this, I have not raised a complaint. You appear to be putting the cart before the horse; in the absence of a complaint, why would you be seeking to ascertain whether DCI Kibble has been untruthful? Why are you seeking to investigate this officer at present?

I wish to understand what has occurred and in turn whether a complaint is appropriate and in turn about whom a complaint should be raised. You appear to have concluded that the appropriate party about whom I should complain is DCI Kibble; why not the FOIA team who have dismissed my application under FOIA when it appears such a report exists? At present, I have stated that there exists such a report and that I have been kept from it. I have stated that DCI Kibble complied the report yet I have not been provided the report. Why are you not asking whether I wish to make a formal complaint about the MPS PAO who, it appears, have not done their utmost to locate the report, who have not approached the alleged author?

Why are you not at liberty to discuss this aspect with me? it is a very straightforward question; If DCI Kibble has not been asked whether or not there exists such a report, why not? Are you saying that the PAO are beyond reproach, that they never make mistakes, do not err?

I repeat:

3. If DCI Kibble confirmed that such a report DOES exist, why has it not been supplied to me?
4. If DCI Kibble confirmed that such a report DOES NOT exist please advise the explanation DCI Kibble gave for informing me that he wrote such a report

As you appear to be ‘investigating’ the matter, it follows that these simple questions would be asked. If DCI Kibble were to confirm o you that the report does exist I assume you would turn your attention to others? In turn, your concerns with regard to this officer would be at an end.

My suspicion is that the MPS DPS, who failed to cause DCI Kibble to be dismissed in 2007 following an apparently excessive but apparently flawed enquiry, are looking for a second bite of the cherry; that your interest has nothing to do with the report I am seeking but that you are using this as an excuse to ascertain what DCI Kibble has told me and in turn, whether this was appropriate. Is it the case that DCI Kibble submitted a report about the ‘deep undercover unit’ being disbanded which did not sit well with the DPS and that when the opportunity arose in late 2005 the ‘deep undercover unit’ was set upon him leading to a investigation costing the MPS £10,000’s (£100,000’s?) but which, in the main, collapsed at the hearing in February 2007?

The MPS PAO or FOIA team have been unable to locate the report, so why not go to the author and ask them where it is to ensure that FOIA is complied with? Is this not the most logical, sensible thing to do? Who better to ask, who else is there to ask in the circumstances than the author? I refer you to my questions and the point above; if you locate the report then why would I wish to complain about DCI Kibble; he would not have misrepresented facts to me? Why invite a complaint (a performance indicator), put me to the trouble of raising the issue and providing evidence, of you ‘investigating’ the matter when there is no issue to complain about – because the report exists (assuming this to be the case). In the alternative, why not encourage my complaint in a sensible, reasonable fashion; confirm that the officer states there is no such report, provide the evidence that he has misrepresented facts to me and conform that, should I wish to complain, the appropriate party about whom to comp[lain is DCI Kibble?

Please ensure that the searches for the report are exhausted, to include asking DCI Kibble where it is hidden, before returning to me inviting a complaint against the Officer. If there is no such report, then it appears I have grounds for making a complaint; for being misled and for the waste of my time associated with this matter. Similarly, I suspect you too would have grounds to be concerned.

As for whether I have any proof or record of the conversation, of course I do. This is essential when dealing with the MPS DPS. It should not be; my word should carry weight, my oral or written statement is evidence – it appears it is evidence you do not wish to accept. You go on to state “this would evidently be instrumental in seeking to investigate and verify your allegation”. What allegation? Please do not suggest to me that the MPS DPS ‘investigate’ matters; I am very aware of your superficial consideration of the issues I have raised, of your unwillingness to progress issues and to undermine my complaints. I am also mindful that you have twice to date sought to ascertain my source of information, that this is the facet you have concentrated upon rather than the substance of my allegation.

It appears you are baiting me or seeking to intimidate. At present there is no complaint for you to consider so why do you make the statement that if I cannot provide such evidence you “will assume that I am unwilling to supply it for consideration in any future investigation and will consider the matter without seeking further confirmation on this point”. What ‘matter’ are you going to consider; I have as yet made no complaint? Why are you pressing me for evidence at this stage? What is your reference for the issue? Why am I being approached in this fashion? How dare you assume that I would be unwilling to supply the data at a later date. Why would you not assume that I am willing to supply it later, once the grounds for any complaint has bene established? I put it to you that the reason is you have a prejudiced stance from the outset, that you have an alternative agenda and other motives i.e. that you have no interest in the FOIA issue but are after details of my conversation with DCI Kibble.

You are at liberty to ask DCI Kibble questions; he is not the subject of a complaint in respect of this matter, he has not been served with any notice in respect of a disciplinary action. If you want answers, why not ask DCI Kibble about the report and his conversation with me. You may find that DCI Kibble is a straightforward, honest officer who will tell you what he said to me, his account may not contradict mine and your concerns will be answered, the whereabouts of the report established. Why are you unwilling to rely upon DCI Kibble’s account at this stage?

I await your responses to:

c. Please advise why you appear unwilling to ask / answer the questions above.
d. If the questions above have not been asked, please confirm that my asking the questions of DCI Kibble will not prejudice any enquiry and that
e. DCI Kibble is not restricted from speaking with me.

yours sincerely,

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk
Sent: 18 January 2010 14:36
To: P Swift
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit
Importance: High

Sir,

We are evidently engaging in rather detailed and lengthy correspondence to ascertain whether and about whom you are seeking to complain. Having reviewed your reply and ongoing queries, it would seem that your previous FOIA request constitutes the background to this present discussion on the matter of a public complaint. You appear to be dissatisfied with the level of information with which you have been supplied and also the processes followed to fulfil your FOIA request. If you need more information in relation to your FOIA request or wish to complain about the PAO's handling of it, the appropriate avenue to follow would be to complain to the Information Commissioner's Office. They can review the steps taken to ascertain whether particular information is held by the MPS.

Our discussions have focused upon your FOIA request and the information which has and has not been supplied. Any dissatisfaction should be raised, as per legislation, with the ICO.

Until such time as you decide to make a complaint about anyone with involvement within or as a consequence of your FOIA request, I shall end our correspondence.

Thank you

Angela

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: Davies Angela
Sent: 19 January 2010 08:07
To: P Swift
Subject: FW: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

________________________________________
Sir,

As agreed during yesterday's phone conversation, please find below an explanation of the PAO's position as regards to disclosing the processes followed in fulfilling your FOIA request:

The Freedom of Information Act provides an applicant with a right to information. This right extends to any information held by a public authority and this must be provided to the requestor unless there is a relevant exemption which applies to the whole information involved or elements of the information. There is no requirement under the FOIA for a Public Authority (PA) to confirm the processes involved in the completion of a FOIA request or review. For example a PA will not confirm the actions completed in attempting to retrieve the information or the considerations around exemptions etc if not eventually relied upon.

The avenue for the actions of a PA in the completion of an FOIA to be reviewed would be via the ICO. The ICO will review the decision made by a PA together with their decision making processes and possibly the actions completed in doing so. This is not to say the ICO would be in a position to confirm these actions to the individual applicant rather confirm the FOIA has been processed appropriately (though this would be their decision on whether to provide further info or not).

If there was a hint at inappropriate processing by the PA the ICO would have a number of regulatory powers, the severest being an investigation into a potential offence under S77 of the Act if the PA has altered the record (i.e. the PA has attempted to prevent disclosure).

I hope this clarifies why I cannot and have not approached the PAO on your behalf to ascertain whether DCI Kibble was approached during the processing of your FOIA request. As explained above, the ICO would seem to be the appropriate organisation through whom to request a review of the PAO's actions in completing your FOIA request. I appreciate the difficulties experienced in clarifying whether DCI Kibble has been spoken to and consequently whether you wish to proceed with a DPS public complaint at this time. As discussed, I am aware that you have told me that you spoke with DCI Kibble during early 2009. At this stage, you are not in a position to confirm whether you believe he may have misrepresented facts to you. Whilst concerns around your FOIA are still in hand, I can confirm that there is a record of our discussions on this subject on our system, but until you decide that you wish to proceed with a public complaint, I will not commence any investigation. I appreciate that it was not your intention to raise a public complaint in the first place. Rather an email from you was forwarded to this department by the PAO and I made further enquiries with you.

Thank you

Angela

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: P Swift
Sent: 19 January 2010 11:33
To: 'Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk'
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

Dear Ms Davis / Day

The ‘clarification’ you have provided only extends to the PAO’s (Public Access Office) position, as opposed to yours (DPS) and it does NOT explain the stance. Dealing with the PAO response, I have never suggested that there is a ‘requirement’ to confirm the process. I have asked a reasonable question in the circumstances as I am unable to reconcile events: on the one hand DCI Kibble unequivocally stated to me that he compiled a report, on the other (despite having provided the PAO with details of the author – because not to do so could prejudice their ability to locate the data) the PAO say the report cannot be located, does not exist. There is no better person to approach than the author, this is an obvious avenue of enquiry.

It is evident form the response you have received that the PAO could (and I stress ‘could’) advise in relation to the very limited question I have raised; whether DCI Kibble was approached.
It also appears that you could ask them, they could reply to you and you could provide this data.

As it appears there is the facility to provide me the information, why has the MPS not done so, why do the MPS PAO chose to be less than open and obstruct, frustrate?

You state you ”cannot and have not approached the PAO on your (my) behalf to ascertain whether DCI Kibble was approached during the processing of your FOIA request”. By reference to the information you have received from the PAO your statement appears to be incorrect, it appears you could ask the question (this appears obvious) furthermore, the PAO could respond to you (they could respond to me). It appears that you have decided not to ask the question and the PAO have taken the decision not to disclose. Why?

If I have misunderstood your response, please clarify. However, anyone can ask a question of the PAO. I therefore do not understand you statement that you cannot. As for the PAO responding, there appears to be nothing preventing them from doing so. If there is, please advise accordingly.

With regard to your statement “For example a PA will not confirm the actions completed in attempting to retrieve the information or the considerations around exemptions etc if not eventually relied upon”, how is this relevant? The exemption I am asking in respect of is one that HAS been relied upon; the PAO state they cannot locate the data. You state in this instance they ‘will not’ as opposed to ‘cannot’. It appears the PAO could confirm the actions completed in attempting to retrieve the information or the considerations around exemptions etc IF (as is the case) eventually relied upon.

Your ‘clarification’ does nto address the issue I raised; neither you nor the PAO have advised why they will not disclose the information, why they will not say whether DCI Kibble was approached.

Is it unreasonable for the PAO to answer a simple question that has a bearing upon their decision but more importantly is pivotal to any complaint that may or may not be raised; was DCI Kibble asked where the report is?

If DCI Kibble, the author of the document, has been approached, how can the Damion Baird of the PAO state (09/11/2009) with certainty:

“I have conducted searches to locate information relevant your request.
These searches failed to locate information relevant to your application.
In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the requested information cannot be provided as it is not held by the MPS.”

As you have approached me seeking to ascertain whether I wish to raise a complaint, as the PAO is obviously talking to you (they provided you with a copy of an email I sent to them), I continue to remain perplexed; on what basis do you wish me to decide whether to complain about DCI Kibble when he may have been providing me an accurate account and it may be the PAO who are misleading me (and you)? Why have you sided with the PAO; why do you believe the PAO? I understand you have not spoken with DCI Kibble; why not? Why have you apparently reached a conclusion based only upon one side of the account, that of the PAO? As you are clearly willing to liaise with the POA, why would you not approach DCI Kibble instead of inviting me to complain about him in the absence of evidence he has done anything wrong when advising me about a report which he compiled and to which I am entitled (possibly subject to reactions)?

Can you understand why I am suspicious of your approach? From my perspective the situation is simple; if DCI Kibble wrote the report then he should have been approached by the PAO (or more recently by you) and asked whether he wrote the report as he has stated to me. If he wrote the report, he should be asked for its location and it should be disclosed (we both appear to agree that it should be released with the appropriate redactions). If he states he did not write the report, then it appears he has misrepresented facts to me and caused the MPS and I a great deal of inconvenience. It may assist you to be aware that if DCI Kibble did not write such a report and has been untruthful, despite my respect for the man, I would make a formal complaint about his actions.

My thanks in anticipation

Yours sincerely,

P Swift

Further to my last e-mail, to clarify your statement:

“I appreciate that it was not your intention to raise a public complaint in the first place.”

It was possible that I would need to raise a complaint. At the time you approached me, 7th January 2010, I had (and continue to have) insufficient information to discern whether a complaint is appropriate and about whom I should complain. As discussed and as evidenced from my previous writings on the subject, this continues to be the case. As mentioned yesterday, it appears at present that someone is misleading me; DCI Kibble, the PAO or the DPS?

You have written (07/01/2010):

“I have recently read communication between yourself and Damion Baird of DPS information unit regarding a Freedom of Information Act request in relation to a report allegedly compiled by DCI Steve Kibble and submitted recommending that a unit be disbanded.”

Please advise the basis upon which the MPS PAO provided you a copy of my communication with them and in turn why the PAO did not ask me whether I wished to complain and / or obtain my consent to my email being forwarded to the DPS.

Thank you

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk
Sent: 20 January 2010 08:37
To: P Swift
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

Sir,

It would seem that there are two key issues under discussion. In relation to each, I can confirm the following:

The FOIA aspect: The MPS have already confirmed that searches for the information were undertaken and no relevant information could be located. This is the end of the FOIA enquiry, which has been answered and reviewed. The next step if you are unhappy with the processing/response by the MPS is to raise a complaint with the ICO.

The other aspect is the DPS complaint side, which you are currently unwilling to indicate whether you wish to make formal. Until this is confirmed, no further action is required, pending the formal issuing of a complaint. As any complaint would appear to revolve around your FOIA, you have already made an FOIA request in regard to the processing of this request. Additionally, you have the avenue of the ICO if you wish to take this further.

With regards to your concern about the communication of your complaint to myself, you may wish to note Damion Baird is not PAO, he is a member of DPS and likely to raise issues he feels may be complaints against police when appropriate and that this will be done in good faith.

I believe that I have succinctly and clearly outlined the present situation. Whilst I am willing and happy to assist when able, at present I am spending an incommensurate amount of time trying to establish whether you wish to make a public complaint. I advise you that if you wish to do so that you follow one of the formal channels. As explained, Damion Baird passed your concerns to me in good faith, but we do not seem to be moving forwards. As I am unable to say anything more than I have already, I will conclude present discussion on the matter.

Thank you

Angela

From: P Swift
Sent: 20 January 2010 10:50
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

I take exception to you misrepresenting the facts.

1. The FOIA Aspect: The MPS has advised that searches were undertaken. They have not advised whether the author DCI Kibble was contacted. This appears an obvious approach to make. Furthermore, it is apparent from your statements that the MPS PAO could advise me whether DCI Kibble was asked furthermore you could ask the question of them and you could advise me. Why am I being obstructed by the PAO and you?

2. The DPS complaint: You state that, with regard to a complaint, I am “ currently unwilling to indicate whether you wish to make formal”. Yet I have written to you more than ‘indicating’ that I would make a complaint, I have been unequivocal in this respect advising yesterday: “It may assist you to be aware that if DCI Kibble did not write such a report and has been untruthful, despite my respect for the man, I would make a formal complaint about his actions.”

I did not write to the DPS when making my FOIA request. My request was acknowledged on 01/01/2009 as an FOIA application by Rozmarie Loizou, an Administrative Support Officer. Is this lady DPS?

On the 11/09/2009 the next response I received was from Damion Baird; why are the DPS handling my FOIA request?

On 09/11/2009 Mr Baird wrote:

“I wrote to you on 11 September 2009 to obtain further details about the
report requested. On 22 September 2009, you wrote to me providing details
of an officer that you understood would be able to assist with your
enquiry. You then provided further information to me on 15 October 2009
about the report subject of your request.

Following receipt of your emails of 22 September 2009 and 15 October 2009,
I have conducted searches to locate information relevant your request.
These searches failed to locate information relevant to your application”

Mr Baird makes reference to my e-mail of 22/09/2009 in which I advised DCI Kibble was the author of the report I am requesting. However, he states he has “made searches to locate information relevant to my request”. He does not state that he has approached the author. Why not?

Noting that it is your department, the DPS, who have handled my FOIA request, why are you asking questions of the PAO? It appears all the information you require, the answer to my straightforward questions, can be obtained by asking Mr Baird the simple question “did you ask DCI Kibble where the report is that he compiled in relation to the disbanding of a ‘deep under cover unit’?

I am not asking you to spend an incommensurate amount of time on this matter but I note that you are willing to assist. The means by which to draw this sag to a close is clearly to ask the very simple question of Mr Baird. There appears to be nothing preventing this and nothing to prevent you providing me with the response. If you believe to the contrary, please provide an explanation i.e. the Act / section or other formal instruction that prevents you from assisting. I note n your latest you state “I am unable to say anything more than I have already”; this does not appear to be the case, but I have invited your comments on the subject.

I remain concerned about the possibility that you have an alternative agenda. My understanding is that DCI Kibble compiled the report I have requested under FOIA. With regard to the 2005 investigation of DCI Kibble you mentioned, I suspect he was the subject of surveillance etc. by the very unit which he had suggested be disbanded. The investigation of DCI Kibble I believe to be a DPS matter. I now note that it is the DPS who are apparently keeping me from the report DCI Kibble compiled, that a member of DPS staff “conducted searches” for the report I have sought under FOIA and it would appear, never asked the author (DCI Kibble) who the DPS investigated. I also understand that the DPS investigation of DCI Kibble was farcical, a shambles and resulted in the bulk of the allegations against the officer being dismissed i.e. the investigation was a waste of public funds. The officer was apparently only ever disciplined for ‘what he said about me’ (quote: IPCC). Now the DPS approach me and invite a complaint against DCI Kibble. You, the DPS, have the power to prevent me making such an allegation or in the alternative confirming such a complaint is appropriate by addressing the straightforward question; was DCI Kibble asked for the whereabouts of the report? In turn, where did he say it could be found? If he states there was no such report, then I refer you to my previous comments in respect of making a complaint.

I remain concerned that you appear to be accepting the word of Mr Baird when inviting my complaint; that you appear to take his word at face value without making the obvious approach to DCI Kibble. I question the impartiality and fairness of your approach. However, I am now mindful that you and Mr Baird work in the same department. If only for the sake of being seen to come to this matter with clean hands, of being open and fair, I would expect you to do DCI Kibble the courtesy of asking him the obvious questions to establish whether a line can be drawn under the issue now.

Had you asked DCI kibble for the whereabouts of the report and you were provided the information, you could address my FOIA request and concentrate on the party who has erred. If there was such a report, presumably you will be asking me to complain about Damion Baird?

My thanks in anticipation.

Yours sincerely,

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: P Swift
Sent: 27 January 2010 11:12
To: Angela Davies
Cc: Kibble Steve - TPHQ; casework{@}ico.gsi.gov.uk; emma.pearce{@}ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: FW: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

Dear Ms Day

It is evident from your writing that you are under no restriction to make an enquiry to ascertain the extent of the searches undertaken to try and locate the report that DCI Kibble states he created. Furthermore, it is evident from your writing that you could convey this data to me. These are simple enquiries that would enable you to conclude whether DCI Kibble did in fact write said report and in turn would assist the MPS ot locate it and comply with my FOIA request. In turn, the results would enable us both to conclude whether a complaint should be made against Damion Baird who (apparently) undertook the FOIA request or DCI Kibble; it is evident one or the other has misled me.

1. Who misled me
2. Should I make a complaint ‘in the alternative’ to resolve this?

Given you’re your failure to undertake this simple task, I have concluded that you:

• are intentionally misrepresenting the situation
• are being obstructive
• have an alternative agenda.

I have previously had cause to question your integrity and am concerned that you continue to be associated with issues I raise. I would urge you to speak with Mr Baird who it appears may work in the same office as you, but is employed by the DPS, 020 8785 866, extentsion 65204, or why not go to the author of the document, DCI Kibble who can be contacted at:

EMERALD TPHQ

In the event I hear no further from you by 5pm Friday 27th January 2010, I shall proceed as I see fit, to include making a complaint about your behavior.

Yours

P Swift

cc ICO, Case Reference Number FS50288182

cc IPCC Police Ref: PC / 034 18 / 09

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk
Sent: 28 January 2010 08:17
To: P Swift
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit
Importance: High

Sir,

Thank you for your emails. It is clear that at this time I cannot assist you further. I have outlined very clearly the options that are available to you. I am not able to disclose anything further about the circumstances and processes undertaken with regards to your FOIA request. I can assure you that this is not a deliberate attempt to be obstructive or unhelpful, I am simply complying with legislation, which sets down the information that you are entitled to. Should you be dissatisfied with the PAO's response or mine, I will refer you to my previous emails as to how you should proceed. I have no alternative agenda, I am simply unwilling to be drawn into further discussion on the same issues, as this would only complicate matters. Until such time as you have decided that you would like to complain and about whom, I am not prepared to correspond further on the same issues.

Thank you

Angela

From: P Swift
Sent: 28 January 2010 10:50
To: 'Angela.Day[@]met.police.uk'
Cc: ico.gsi.gov.uk;ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: RE: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

Dear Sirs,

Your ref: unknown
ICO Ref. FS50288182
IPCC Ref: Emma Pearce re Abelard / Morgan DI Belej appeal

It is clear you have elected not to assist me further. By reference to your previous writings you are able to, but chose not to do so. How else should I interpret your actions other than as a deliberate, intentional, calculated obstruction? Hopefully you will explain the reasons why ‘it is clear to you’ that further assistance cannot be provided; I do not understand this – see below.

1. Why are you not able (unable) to disclose anything further. Please cite regulation and / or Act.

You are twisting words and misrepresenting the situation. We are not talking about the information I am entitled to. We are discussing your ability to ascertain and disclose what enquiries were undertaken such that the record could not be located.

You now state you are “unwilling to be drawn into further discussion” you have previously written “Whilst I am willing and happy to assist when able”. Why are you now unable (see above)? I refer you to mine of the 20th January and y statement “There appears to be nothing preventing this and nothing to prevent you providing me with the response. If you believe to the contrary, please provide an explanation i.e. the Act / section or other formal instruction that prevents you from assisting”. Why have I not already been provided the explanation, the Act or regulation that prevents you from providing the assistance you appear keen to demonstrate?

I refer you to yours of 19/01/2009:

• “There is no requirement under the FOIA for a Public Authority (PA) to confirm the processes involved in the completion of a FOIA request or review.”

I understand that there is no requirement. I have never suggested otherwise. You have approached me inviting a complaint against DCI Kibble. You have offered your assistance. I have asked for you to confirm that DCI Kibble, the author of the document I have requested has been approached to confirm; was the report / review written if so, where is it. This would not only address my FOIA request, it would also ensure I could make an informed decision about whom to complain; DCI Kibble for misleading me or your colleague, Damion Baird for failing to undertake an obvious enquiry to locate the information I am legally entitled to (possibly with some redactions.

I again refer you to yours of 19/01/2009:

• “For example a PA will not confirm the actions completed in attempting to retrieve the information or the considerations around exemptions etc if not eventually relied upon.”

2. Why not, why will they not tell you? Please cite regulation and or Act.

I again refer you to yours of 19/01/2009:

The avenue for the actions of a PA in the completion of an FOIA to be reviewed would be via the ICO.

I am seeking this in relation to the failure to release ( ICO Ref. FS50288182 ). This does not detract from my request to be provided confirmation DCI Kibble was approached (as above), particularly given you have approached me seeking to ascertain whether I wished to progress a complaint against DCI Kibble. What complaint would you have me progress; that he misrepresented facts to me, that there is no report? How can this be determined if DCI Kibble has not been asked? If he has not been asked, why not; why not invite me to complain about Damion Baird, your DPS colleague?

• I again refer you to yours of 19/01/2009:

“If there was a hint at inappropriate processing by the PA the ICO would have a number of regulatory powers, the severest being an investigation into a potential offence under S77 of the Act if the PA has altered the record (i.e. the PA has attempted to prevent disclosure).”
The ICO will address this aspect. I am seeking information in relation to the enquiry undertaken to locate the report, a simple confirmation that the author of the document, DCI Kibble, was approached. If DCI Kibble answered there was a document, there would be no grounds for me raising the complaint. So why do you invite this? I note you have troubled to cite the section (77) relating to an attempt to prevent disclosure. I therefore anticipate receiving the relevant section of the ACT or MPS Regulations that prevents you providing the assistance I have requested – see ‘1’ and ‘2’ above

The complication results from your withholding the data I have reasonably requested. If you disagree:

3. Please explain how further discussion would complicate matters. I do not understand.

I cannot be any more direct with regard to my stance; I spoke with DCI Kibble in 2009 and was advised that he had written such a report. The history of my request can be found at:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/th...

I await responses to my questions (above); do I need to quote DCI Kibble to progress this?

yours faithfully,

P Swift

c.c. ICO & IPCC

P Swift left an annotation ()

From: P Swift
Sent: 03 February 2010 16:34
To: 'Angela.Day@met.police.uk'
Subject: FW: FOIA request re report allegedly compiled and submitted by DCI Kibble to disband unit

Copy 03/02/2009

Dear Ms Day / Davies

Your ref: unknown
ICO Ref. FS50288182
IPCC Ref: Emma Pearce re Abelard / Morgan DI Belej appeal

I refer to mine of the 28th January 2010 in respect of which I continue to await a response. With regard to your statement:

“I am not able to disclose anything further about the circumstances and processes undertaken with regards to your FOIA request. I can assure you that this is not a deliberate attempt to be obstructive or unhelpful, I am simply complying with legislation, which sets down the information that you are entitled to.”

The Information Commissioner’s Office, 08456 30 60 60 or 01625 54 57 45, have advised me that there is no legislation that prevents you from advising the process undertaken to complete an FOIA request.

Mindful that you are willing and happy to assist when able (20/01/2010), I ask to be provided answers to the straightforward questions posed; was DCI Kibble approached to ascertain the whereabouts of the report he apparently wrote and if so, what did he advise?

Thank you

P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

DoI 2 - Security Standards & Architecture
DoI2(3) Information Compliance

Public Access Office,
PO BOX 57192,
London
SW6 1TR
www.met.police.uk

4th February 2010

Dear Mr Swift

With regard to your emails of the 28th of January 2010 and the 3rd of February 2010, which were sent to a member of the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards and published on the Whatdotheyknow.com webpage relating to your previous request, 2009080005842 (The disbanding of the MPS (DPS) deep undercover unit), you have asked what section of the Freedom of Information Act prevents the MPS from assisting you further in this matter. I am therefore writing to inform you that the relevant section of the FOIA is section 17(6), which states that when a previous request for information has received a refusal notice stating that section 14(1) is relied upon, there is no requirement to issue further refusal notices when additional requests relating to the same subject are received, if it would be unreasonable to expect the public authority to do so. The following is intended to provide an explanation of why this section of the Act is relevant in this case.

In the correspondence you have exchanged with DPS throughout January 2010, you have made a number of additional requests for information relating to the processing of your Freedom of Information Act request reference number 2009080005842. The initial MPS response to 2009080005842 had confirmed to you that no information was held, and this decision was subsequently upheld by an Internal Review which was undertaken at your request. The Internal Review decision included a paragraph advising you that based on the volume and nature of the previous correspondence you have exchanged with the MPS on the subject of a named MPS officer, the MPS would consider applying section 14(1) of the Act to any future requests on the same subject. This response also advised you of your complaint rights in relation to this request. This decision was sent to you on the 15th December 2009.

As this response indicated, the appropriate route through which to exercise your right to appeal the decision would be by contacting the Information Commissioner. Despite this, on the 16th of December 2009 you submitted a further request reference number 2009120005044, asking for details of the processing of your previous request, 2009080005842. A response was issued to you on the 21st of January 2010 in relation to 2009120005044, which communicated that the MPS considered this request to be vexatious under the provisions of section 14(1).

While your email of the 11th of January 2010 to casework[@]ico.gsi.gov.uk indicates that you have exercised your right to appeal in respect of 2009080005842 and that the matter is now is the hands of the ICO, you have continued to request information relating to the handling of this request and the MPS officer in the separate chain of correspondence mentioned above. Section 17(6) (a) (b) and (c) of the Act indicates that when a refusal notice citing section 14(1) has already been issued in respect of a previous request for information, there is no requirement to issue a further refusal notice if subsequent requests are received. Therefore, in this case, the MPS is not required to issue further refusal notices in response to requests for information relating to the MPS officer, as a refusal notice relying on section 14(1) has been issued in relation to a previous request, in this instance 2009120005044. The formal wording of section 17(5) and (6) of Act is shown below:

(5) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is relying on a claim that section 12 or 14 applies must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice stating that fact.

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply where—
(a) the public authority is relying on a claim that section 14 applies,
(b) the authority has given the applicant a notice, in relation to a previous request for information, stating that it is relying on such a claim, and
(c) it would in all the circumstances be unreasonable to expect the authority to serve a further notice under subsection (5) in relation to the current request.

For your awareness, I would like to draw to your attention to your previous requests 2009100002350, 2009120004030 and 2009120004041, which have also received refusal notices relying on section 14(1). Request numbers 2009100002350 and 2009120004030 asked for information in relation to Operation Abelard, and 2009120004041 asked for information in respect of your previous dealings with the Public Access Office and the management by the PAO of your previous requests for information. Section 17(6)(a)(b)and (c) will similarly apply to further requests for information on these subjects.

In all cases, you have been advised of your right to appeal to the Information Commissioner. As noted above, this is the appropriate route by which the decisions of the MPS in these instances may be reviewed. Until such a time as a decision is made by the Information Commissioner, the MPS will not respond to any further requests for information on those subjects where section 14(1) has previously been applied, as under section 17(6) of the Act there is no requirement to do so.

Yours sincerely

Louise Lander
Higher information Manager

Dear Ms Lander,
Re the disbanding of the MPS (DPS) 'deep undercover unit
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2009080005842
Regarding the costs of Abelard, I understand the refusal (that its not to say I agree with it) and have appealed. This should be evident to you by reference to:
1. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_t...
2. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_t...
3. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_a...
therefore you reference to the matters are not understood.
I am also mindful that you have sought to apply an exemption to my request:
Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No: 2009120004041
Known Problems with MPS Data Supply
4. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/known_pro...
where I have cited a statement of a senior officer who disclosed a knowledge of the difficulty associated with the obtaining information from your constabulary.
Whilst I thank you for the time and trouble to which you have gone, we appear to be talking at cross purposes. My recent writings have been in relation to:
Disbanding of the MPS (DPS) 'deep undercover unit
5. www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_disba...
I understand the refusal (that its not to say I agree with it) and have appealed. This aspect I will leave to the ICO. However, you have failed to comment upon the reasons for my continued writings and approaches with regard to this issue, namely that it was the MPS who approached me, that the MPS have been corresponding with me; this has not been one sided but an exchange.
The MPS have demonstrated a blatant disregard of the FOIA . Additionally, I have issues with the ICO regarding the MPS’ failure to correct erroneous data and y continued failure to provide data I am entitled to under my Subject Access rights. Now you appear to be selective in your consideration of events.
As at 16th December 2009 I was content to progress this matter to the ICO. I have throughout my approaches abided by the decisions made and progressed the matters in accordance with the FOIA. I had not anticipated the matter being resurrected by you, I had no intention of doing so. However, out of the blue, on 7th January 2010, it was the MPS’ Detective Sergeant Angela Day of the DPS (complaints department) who emailed me seeking to ascertain whether I wished to complain about DCI Kibble. I have had dealings with DS Angela Day in the past. It is hardly as though I am unknown to the MPS DPS; why would they be seeking a complaint from me; inviting and encouraging a complaint? I am capable of raising grievance if I consider it necessary. I was asked for ‘considerably more detail’ if I wished to complain’. In support of my providing an accurate account, I refer you to:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_disba... (‘5’ above).
The above also details my attempts to resolve with DS Day THIS aspect, the complaint issue NOT another FOIA request for the same data.
I am concerned that DS Day appears to have accepted the word of whoever (apparently) looked for the report, that she appears not to be taking a balanced view; considering that the report may exist, that DCI Kibble could have told the truth. I believe it only reasonable for Ms Day to have satisfied herself that the report does not exist. Why seek to instigate a complaint against a senior officer without cause?
Why not, as an example, ask me if I wanted to complain about Damion Baird?
I do have an issue with the DPS being associated with my FOIA request for a report that relates to the disbanding of part of the DPS. The DPS handled the FOIA request and the DPS are seeking to ascertain whether I wish to commence a complaint against an officer who apparently recommended a specialist DPS unit be disbanded. There appear to be conflicts here.
I also believe the DPS progressed a disciplinary action against DCI Kibble that I understand failed spectacularly. Apparently, in compiling their evidence the DPS used the very unit the officer had recommended be disbanded. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
There appears motive for the MPS DPA and PAO being obstructive, of being desirous of a complaint against DCI Kibble.
This aside, I am not asking the MPS to look for the report, to return to my original FOIA request and I am not making a further FOIA request for the document. I am asking to be provided the information that would enable me (and the MPS) to determine who (if anyone) should be the subject of the complaint I have been approached to consider.
As I have not made a further FOIA request in respect of the report, citing section 17 is inappropriate and it does NOT address the issue I have raised (see above).
DS Day has stated:
“I am not able to disclose anything further about the circumstances and processes undertaken with regards to your FOIA request”
It is apparent DS Day will provide me with the information, would advise whether DCI Kibble was asked but DS Day appears concerned that there is some legislation preventing this. What legislation?

I understand DS Day has limited knowledge of the Act. What has DS Day been advised, what section has been cited, that prevents her from providing the assistance she wishes to impart? DS Day has explained how she wishes to help me, she is happy to do so. DS Day has expressed a concern that she is unable to do so, that legislation prevents this.
The ICO tell me that there is nothing preventing DS Day or the MPS from telling me what enquires were undertaken to reach the conclusion that the report I am seeking does not exist. Section 17 does not relate to this aspect.
In wiring on 3rd February 2010, had hoped to put DS Day’s mind at rest; there is no legislation that prevents her providing me the help she wishes to. It appears this has led to the approach to you.
I had anticipated being advised:
A. Whether or not DCI Kibble was approached to confirm that the report he told me he wrote actually existed i.e. that he had told me the truth and
B. Assuming he had written the report, the location of same
Having considered the above in light of your reply, I do accept that ‘B’ would be of greater interest to the ICO but is must surely be of importance to you? If the report can be located, it can be supplied and we can all draw a line under the issue.
For my purpose and that of DS Day (in the context a complaint issue), it is ‘A’ that is important, that can be addressed by Ms Day and in respect of which there is no legislation preventing disclosure to me. On receipt of this information, I shall consider whether to submit a complaint and who it should name; this is the reason for my approach and DS Day’s involvement, her approaches to me.
The section you have cited, 17(6) is erroneous, tangential.
I again ask you to address the question I have put that will enable DS day and I to progress the issue.
Your sincerely

P Swift

Dave Merccer left an annotation ()

are you saying there are secret police operating in the UK?

P Swift left an annotation ()

thank you for your interest

I am acting upon what I have been told by a senior MPS officer. I have a straightforward statement from a senior serving Officer. To date no one in the MPS has ever said that such a unit does not or did not exist.

The matter is with the Information Commissioner's Office[Ref. FS50288182] and I await further comment from the MPS - see above.

P Swift left an annotation ()

Mr Realist left an annotation ()

I would like to say that i admire your determination but can for see the outcome.

As i understand the name of the unit within the DPS has been told to you, could it be that it has un intentioanlly been miss named and is a central department under the anti corruption command banner based at there Putney headquarters and then been farmed out to a investigations team. It may assist you to enquire into the detection rate of the dps and then there annual budget and more importantly there budget spends with a break down of usage i.e technical deployment, surveillance and investigation pre and post charge. Another angle would be to enquire into discipline within the dps and more specifically anti corruption command and as a result of that compensation pay outs !!! The dps will continue to stone wall you and as you have noticed before replying to your questions they primarily asked if you wanted to complain about the DCI. I would guess that if he is based at TPHQ it is not because he wanted to go there but because he has been placed there by some weak minded senior officer. Sounds like another example of the dps conducting a witch hunt and then wasting the valuable experience of a senior DCI because they failed to recognise early into a investigation that it had NO SUBSTANCE and therefor wasted vast sums of the tax payers money.
This is not a isolated incident and im sure panorama will be airing such similar incidents in the near future.

i welcome your response,

Mr Realist

P Swift left an annotation ()

Thank you for your encouragement. 'Witch hunt' .... exactly how I have referred to the actions that caused my name to become mixed up in a fiasco.

As for wasting both the valuable experience of a senior DCI and the tax payers money; I concur. My head to head with the MPS has just entered its 5th year following a superficial 'investigation' by DPS requiring the IPCC to step in to protect the MPS!

your suggestions intrigue me.

best I send a PM!

Mr Realist left an annotation ()

Hello Mr Swift,

i can sympathise with your situation and as i have said one of many which they "hush up". One thing i would say which i am sure you have worked out is to be very cautious around the IPCC they have a ex senior police officer as a lead investigator which im sure does him no harm as he has strong links to the DPS anti corruption command. The ipcc are simply a publicity animal and may as well be called the "dps ipcc" as where do they go when they require anything from the police !!!
Im sure you are aware that approx 8 years ago a book called The Untouchables was attempted to be blocked by the MPS because it as you have stated, said that certain departments within DPS should be disbanded due to expensive personal driven investigations and lack of results (witch hunts). It may assist,dont give up and i for see a lot more arising in the not to distant future.

Good luck

Mr Realist

P Swift left an annotation ()

I remember The Untouchables by Michael Gillard & Laurie Flynn. I have a preference for the fictional (?) writing of GF Newman … fond memories of The Elephant & Castle, of Carter Street (MS) but still enjoy my signed copy of ‘In the Office of Constable’.

I suspect the intransigence I encounter is as a result of unprofessionalism and childishness (playground antics) I really don’t think they’re clever enough to be truly corrupt … just self-serving, misguided with their own petty agendas or simply playing games for the perverted fun of it.

This having been said, I have just responded to an annotation posted on another of my FOIA requests at:

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_t...

a far more serious issue!

As for the IPCC, I am aware Moir Stewart has just joined the ranks of the Incompetent Police Complaints Charity ;-). I have had a belly full of the IPCC over the years and their inability to find parts of their anatomy with a mirror and a magnifying glass. I have first hand experience of their illogical and inconsistent findings, their failure to find fault with anyone but the complainant and bizarre treatment of complaints against them. My web site will likely follow shortly!

Thanks for the encouragement.

MPS PAO
Dear Ms (Dr?) Lander

please advise when I can expect to receive the courtesy of a response to mine of 4 February 2010 (above)

thank you

P Swift

Dave Merccer left an annotation ()

Reading between the lines, it appears there may not be and may never have been any 'deep undercover unit', that there is or was a clandestine department but that this went by another name.

Time to ask the MPS for any report compiled suggesting that any unit associated with complaints investigation be disbanded?

DM

Mr Realist left an annotation ()

I believe that maybe the unit has been misrepresented to parties to cause just this kind of confusion. The dps have historically for decades chased personal missions against individuals for little or no reason and then clammed up to save there own skin when the job ends. Personally I think there expenses and financials would be a very good line of attack they have the worst detection rate in the Met and there is good reason for it ! The corruption just isn't there at the magnitude that there job dictates and should be investigated by a public body. I do wonder what the annual budget is for a anti corruption command team in comparison to a typical uniform relief team which has £1000 per month to cover everything that long shifts dealing with emergency calls and the public throw at them !!!

Mr realist

P Swift left an annotation ()

thank you to you both for troubling to annotate.
Mr Realist,
The circumstances in which reference to the ‘deep undercover unit’ was made suggest to me that this was a colloquialism and in this respect I possibly should have been a little more broad in my approach.
Your statement “The dps have historically for decades chased personal missions against individuals for little or no reason and then clammed up to save there own skin when the job ends” is a wonderful précis of my suspicion of events that causes me to be raising issues and attempting to ascertain what is recorded about me (why) and set the record straight.
Mr Merccer ,
I believe any attempt I make to progress the matter will again be deemed ‘vexatious’. I invite anyone to make a similar application, in simple terms. However, as I have named the author of the report, I do not think it too difficult for the MPS to have located the document. But you will note from my comments above that the MPS will not even confirm having asked the author!
I have a couple of requests outstanding with the MPS and will return to this matter over the weekend – hopefully to report that the information is to be released .... with a glass half full,
P Swift

P Swift left an annotation ()

It appears the MPS DPS believe DCI Kibble has lied to me. If this is the case then a lot of my time and that of the MPS has been wasted. However, I suspect the MPS DPS have an alternative agenda. Despite the DPS stating they wish to help they do not. The MPS PAO will only provide what I believe to be erroneous arguments in support of their decision not to confirm that they have spoken with DCI Kibble to corroborate the existence and whereabouts of the report he apparently wrote. Louise Lander (MPS) has not responded to my e-mail (above), despite my having re-sent it. I have emailed DCI Kibble (26/01/2010) and whilst I have received a read receipt, I have heard no further. If DCI Kibble had been asked about the report why not simply tell me this and my complaint would follow.
I suspect the MPS DPS wish to be provided my evidence; the full conversations with DCI Kibble so that they can take action against him on issues unrelated to the ‘deep, deep undercover unit’.
The conversation in which the MPS DPS appear to believe DCI Kibble has misrepresented facts occurred on 2nd March 2009. Therefore, if I am to follow the formal complaint route, I need to make the complaint 1st March 2010 to avoid the MPS claiming a dispensation; an issue over 12 months old. Whilst I have the DPS’ DS Day / Davies word that the time limit will not be applied in this case, I question what faith can be placed in the officer’s word and if she has the authority to make such a statement, if her assertion is enforceable. Therefore, tomorrow (01/03/2010)I shall make a complaint about:
1. DCI Kibble or in the alternative:
2. S Strong and
3. Damion Baird and
4. Louise Lander (Doctor?)
In support of my statement that I was told by DCI Kibble there was a report about the disbanding of the unit, that he was the author, I shall cite the following statements of DCI Kibble.
“ I did a report to say that the deep deep undercover unit should be disbanded um, I was asked to do a review of it, and the, the rationale behind that was that they were unattributable, did have their own agendas um they weren't properly supervised and should be in effect brought back under the direct command of, of the SU commander.”
and
“ ….. not the DPS, not the anti-corruption command that I worked for at the time, it was the deep undercover covert ******* nobody knows of their existence, where they're based or what vehicles they, they're under an assumed identities, they are, they are the deep, deep undercover, and … “
I believe my evidence in incontrovertible; so who is telling me the truth and why was DCI Kibble not (as it appears) been asked about the report’s whereabouts? In the alternative, why is it being kept from me?
The FOIA is about openness of Government … Do we still have such a unit operating in the UK? Are they still unaccountable … or more so now? Apparently it was this very unit that was ‘set upon’ DCI Kibble years after he submitted his report … so they were not disbanded following his recommendations.
I have placed this in the public domain as I am fearful of reprisals. I also believe that making the issue public, particularly the apparent existence of a covert, unaccountable (I assume this is what DCI Kibble meant by ‘unattributable’) is of great importance and concern to all.
It is my intention to explain how this links to Abelard, the three linked investigations:
1987: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_t...
1999: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_t...
2005: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_a...
Also the problems I have encountered having the MPS address my request to correct inaccurate data they hold associated with me and my current issue with a Subject Access enquiry; the MPS PAO (Mark Knight) has reneged on a written statement provide me the data the MPS hold.
However, mindful that the MPS DPS dispensation of 1 year could apply to all issues relating to the 2nd March 2009 conversation with DCI Kibble, I now need to concentrate upon compiling and presenting all issues to the IPCC.
I am concerned that the IPCC will, in the first instance, refer the matters back to the MPS DPS ... the very cause of the complaints! I do not believe this to be appropriate but understand that if I wish the complaint(s) to progress I have no choice but to permit this to occur!

Mr Realist left an annotation ()

Mr Swift,

I can see that you have been stone walled by the DPS again. I do totally agree that any complaint to the IPCC will result in the file going straight to the DPS as the IPCC will have a complaints data base which MAY flag things up. I have to say i am slightly confused with the situation and don't mean to pry but my understanding is that you have been unnessisarily swept into a investigation and been damned by the DPS which has had involvement from the usage of "undercover oficers". This leading to your requests for information to highlight your innocence and lack of involvement. I can foresee the (likely) problem with the DPS being that they have messed up as usual and if they provide information to you this may lead to them being highlighted as the bafoons that they are. If your primary intention is to clear your name and wish to seek what they have on you personally and there involvement with you is complete maybe you could achieve this by flanking them. It may be a option as a former officer to contact the federation and ask simply if a internal request be made on your behalf by them in relation to what information is held personally on you in relation to the operation you were linked to. This is a simple process of form filling and then submitted internally to the DPS. If you have been subject to a investigation which has resulted in nothing you would have a right to information on YOU but of course this may be sanitised. It may be another avenue for you. Im sure your aware but they used similar tactic's on Ali Desei previously and his pushing resulted in him finding out that they had conducted hundreds of unlawful wire taps to highlight just one issue and this resulted in them looking very poorly and getting sued.

All the best, i hate to see the DPS abuse there position and then hope it all goes away.

happy hunting

Mr Realist

P Swift left an annotation ()

This request and associated information will appear @ www.urlittlepeople.co.uk (work in progress)

P Swift left an annotation ()

Case Reference Number FS50288182
Your reference G09B586/PBS/L337758

Dear Mr Swift

Freedom of Information Act 2000
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Your complaint has been allocated to me for investigation. I apologise for the delay that has occurred in allocating the case. I have now written to the MPS asking for clarification of its response to your complaint.

On 27 August 2009 you requested:

“a copy of the report compiled by a senior MPS officer in respect of the MPS 'deep undercover unit' associated with police discipline, complaints and / or corruption investigations. The report apparently recommended that the unit be disbanded”.

The MPS’s reply of 9 November 2009 advised that MPS did not hold the requested information.

MPS upheld its decision in an internal review which was sent to you on 15 December 2009. You contacted the Commissioner on 11 January 2010 to object to the decision. Subsequent to this, you have brought to the Commissioner’s attention additional information regarding the nature of the enquiries MPS has made in relation to your request.

The focus of my investigation will be to determine whether or not MPS held the requested information.

Please contact me as soon as possible if there are matters other than these that you believe should be addressed. This will help avoid any unnecessary delay in investigating your complaint. If I do not hear from you, my investigation will focus only upon the matters identified above.

Please note that the Information Commissioner’s decisions are based on the assessment of evidence provided by you and the public authority. While the Information Commissioner's Office is committed to the principles of openness, and promoting public access to official information, we are bound by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Therefore, in some cases we may find that the information requested has been legitimately withheld by the public authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Yours sincerely

Mrs H Jarman
Senior Complaints Officer
FOI Team 2 – Police, Justice and Taxation

Mr Realist left an annotation ()

I see that the powers that be Are still stalling. Are the MPA aware of your plight as they are apparently investigating complaint procedures throughout the MPS. Let's hope they can work out why they have 500 officers of varying rank and can only convict 26 staff
members in 18 months. !!!

Don't let them get away with it.

Good luck

Mr Realist

P Swift left an annotation ()

The MPA appear disinterested. I await the MPS response to the complaint I made about DCI Kibble though I qualified the complaint suspecting DCI Kibble was telling the truth and that the MPS are keeping me from the report.

Unsurprisingly, I have been advised the matter is with DS (acting DI) Angela Davies of DI belej's team (MPS DPS) both of whom I named them in the complaint. The situation is farcical ... Keystone comes to mind.

More problems with the MPS:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/br...

regards

P Swift
www.urlittlepeople.co.uk

P Swift left an annotation ()

The MPS DPS have lumped two complaints together:
1. http://www.urlittlepeople.co.uk/ipcc_com...
2. www.urlittlepeople.co.uk/ipcc_complaint1...
and are now seeking to employ a dispensation, to have the matter 'struck out' as 'vexatious. See:
www.urlittlepeople.co.uk/mps_reply.htm
Quite incredible; they approach me (7th January, above) to ascertain if I wish to make a complaint, they do not assist me to confirm that I should complain about DCI Kibble and when I make the allegation complaining about the Officer and in the alternative others, such as DI Mike Belej and DS Day, who is appointed to 'investigate' the matter and who writes seeking the dispensation ... DI Mike Belej.
Let's see if I can overcome this obstacle and what they put in the way next ....

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),
Dear Louise Lander
Higher information Manager

I refer to your email of 4th February 2010 (above). You state I “have asked what section of the Freedom of Information Act prevents the MPS from assisting you further in this matter.” Specifically I am asking what section of the FOIA or other Act prevents you from fulfilling DS Day’s offer and telling me whether DCI Kibble was approached to ascertain:

1. Where the report is that he wrote (see www.urlittlepeople.co.uk/deep_undercover...

2. why, if there is no such report, he has misinformed me

You have referred me to section 17(6) of the FOIA. However, I am not making a further FOIA request, I am asking (as I am entitled) in respect of the original request (above). I am asking after having been approached by the MPS to ascertain if I wished to complain about DCI Kibble, I have asked having been advised by DS Angela Day that the MPS DPS have a desire to help. DS Day wrote (above) on the 20th January 2010 “I am willing and happy to assist when able” . DS Day is able to help, but has failed to do so. DS Day and you appear intent on concocting arguments designed to obstruct.

DS Day has stated (28th January 2010) “I am not able to disclose anything further about the circumstances and processes undertaken with regards to your FOIA request. I can assure you that this is not a deliberate attempt to be obstructive or unhelpful, I am simply complying with legislation, which sets down the information that you are entitled to.”

I have said to the ICO “presumably there's no legislation that prevents them (the MPS) telling me if they've spoken to the officer?” and the response was "No there isn't at all. I mean we would hope that they would try and be as helpful as possible really and obviously you're being helpful to them." See: www.urlittlepeople.co.uk/ico_advice.htm

I continue to await the response to the questions I have asked. Please also explain why the MPS are NOT being helpful and misrepresent this aspect, make false statements. If the MPS wanted to be helpful then, even if there was legislation they could rely upon to keep a reply from me, why would they elect to do so? But there is no legislation, you can answer my questions, you can be helpful … so why are you not?

Having consideration to the above, I again ask to be provided a copy of the report. I do not accept the response that it does not exist. I believe DCI Kibble; that this senior Officer, a former anti-corruption command Officer, a member of the DPS, did just as he said – he wrote a report that the ‘secret police’ be disbanded because they were effectively uncontrollable. Clearly, as the very unit was apparently subsequently tasked with investigating him, they remained in operation …. That I cannot obtain a copy of this report and am being obstructed causes me to be all the more suspicious of this unit, how they are employed and who controls (protects?) them .
Yours sincerely

P Swift

Dave Merccer left an annotation ()

Sir
I withdraw my 23rd February 2010 entry.
it seems there are indeed deep undercover units,. deep undercover units
i hope you take some comfort from the latest disclosures in the press relating to ACPO and direct your questions to them possibly
D Merccer
also see
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/in...

Dave Merccer left an annotation ()

Sir
see:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15379882#st...
there are likely to exist numerous reports about undercover units - creation, staffing, handling, procedural, funding, reporting …

Sarah Joseph left an annotation ()

looks as though the report you wanted was destroyed. see:

21st March Daily Mail.

This week saw the shocking revelation that a ‘lorry-load’ of documents compiled during a secret investigation into corruption in Britain’s biggest police force was shredded in 2003.

A secret ‘ghost squad’ of detectives involved in the inquiry uncovered proof of widespread criminality among their Metropolitan Police colleagues in the Eighties and Nineties.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

so why not tell you this in 2009?

Sarah Joseph left an annotation ()

This matter was raised again recently. You may wish to return to the subject.