The murder of Stephen Lawrence

Emlyn Welsh made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

The request was refused by Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

From: Emlyn Welsh

14 November 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I have read in the newspaper today that two men, Gary Dobson and
David Norris have gone on trial at the Old Bailey, charged with the
murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Has all the tape-recorded material which should have been disclosed
to the defence been disclosed, or have you decided to keep it
covered up again as you did in the case of Muktar Ibrahim, Yassin
Omar, Ramzi Mohammed, and Hussain Osman ?

For the avoidance of doubt, the tape-recorded material I am asking
about is the material you have already told me you might have, but
you're not confirming or denying it.

If the tape recorded material has been disclosed, please send me a
copy of the disclosure schedule. Not that I'd suspect for one
moment that you might be dishonest you understand.

Yours faithfully,

Emlyn Welsh

Link to this

Emlyn Welsh left an annotation (14 November 2011)

Quote-marks Copy of request sent to Mr. Stephen Batten QC

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

15 November 2011

Dear Mr Welsh

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011110002022
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14/11/2011.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

Has all the tape-recorded material which should have been disclosed to the
defence been disclosed?        
If the tape recorded material has been disclosed, please send me a copy of
the disclosure schedule.

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 timescale 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 email
or contact me on telephone number 020 7230 2003 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Beaumont
SCD Information Manager
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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

From: Emlyn Welsh

18 November 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

As you are aware the trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris is
currently under-way, so time is obviously of the essence in this
case.

I can not understand why you need so long to provide me with a
"yes" or "no" answer.

Yours faithfully,

Emlyn Welsh

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

21 November 2011

Dear Mr Welsh

Thank you for your email.

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the MPS has 20 working days in which to supply you with an answer to your request or to extend the deadline using a Public Interest Test. Obviously, the MPS is still within this time frame, the website you are using quite clearly states that we have until 13th December 2011 in which to respond.

As soon as your request has been thoroughly considered and a response approved then we will send you an answer.

Yours sincerely

A Beaumont
SCD Information Manager

show quoted sections

Link to this

Emlyn Welsh left an annotation (30 November 2011)

Quote-marks We are now 13 days into the trial of Gary Dobson and David Norris, and I still have not received a simple "yes" or "no" answer to my request for proof that the evidence which the police have successfully managed to keep covered up in previous cases has been disclosed in this case. They seem to think that they have "until the 13th of December" to answer my question. They don't. The law says that FOI requests should be answered "promptly".

Copy of request sent to Attorney General Dominic Grieve, and Sky news.

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

5 December 2011

Dear Mr Welsh,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:  2011110002022

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 14th November 2011.
 I note you seek access to the following information:

I have read in the newspaper today that two men, Gary Dobson and David
Norris have gone on trial at the Old Bailey, charged with the murder of
Stephen Lawrence.
   
1.  Has all the tape-recorded material which should have been disclosed to
the defence been disclosed?  
   
2.  If the tape recorded material has been disclosed, please send me a
copy of the disclosure schedule.
EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the Specialist Crime Directorate (SCD) at the  Homicide and Serious
Crime Command (SCD1) and Operation Trident (SCD8).

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the information in relation to question 1
to you in full and exempt question 2 by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)
of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this
email.

At question one you asked:

Has all the tape-recorded material which should have been disclosed to the
defence been disclosed?

The MPS response is:

The MPS has followed the disclosure rules in relation to the trial.  The
disclosure of evidence has been exhaustive and extensive.  All disclosure
has been overseen by Counsel.  The MPS has answered this question under
our duty to assist.  However, as it is not requesting recorded information
as defined by Section 8 (2)(c) of the Act it could be seen as an invalid
request.

At question two you asked:

Please send me a copy of the disclosure schedule

The MPS response is:

This information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

Under Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information if it was obtained or recorded for the purposes of
investigations, criminal proceedings or civil proceedings.

In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review.
Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact
and undermine any current or future reviews. This exemption can be applied
after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and
following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the
PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or
withholding the requested information.

This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION
     
Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the
parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can
be answered.
     
The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public
authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if
permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public
authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.
     
The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject
to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities
to withhold information that is not suitable for release.  Importantly,
the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is,
once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is
then considered public information and must be communicated to any
individual should a request be received.
     
I have considered your request for information within the provisions set
out by the Act . I have addressed your request in order to both confirm if
the requested information is held by the MPS and then to provide this
information to you. Where I have been unable to provide the requested
information to you, I have explained my decision in accordance with
Section 17 of the Act.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have
considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.
     
Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant
for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under
the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in
disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to
provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a
genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar
disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to
individuals, or  criminal and / or civil process.
     
Information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity,
as it could have a detrimental effect on court proceedings and therefore
the operational effectiveness of the MPS.  release of the disclosure
schedule while a trial is ongoing may result in a mistrial as the schedule
includes information that is sensitive and material that can only be shown
to the lawyers involved in the case.
     
High profile trials, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner
in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the
tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public
knowledge thereby rendering them useless in the future or causing a
mistrial.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Disclosure of this information would enlighten members of the public as to
the action taken by the MPS in this investigation. This may go some way to
promoting awareness, accountability and would reinforce the MPS's
commitment to openness and transparency. Release of this information would
assist in any public debate on the MPS's action during this investigation
and would demonstrate the willingness of the MPS to be open and
transparent with the public showing what procedures are carried out.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Information relating to an ongoing trial will rarely be disclosed and only
where there is a very strong public interest consideration favouring
disclosure. In this case, release of the requested information  could
allow individuals to use the material contained in the disclosure schedule
to undermine the methodology and techniques employed by the MPS and impede
current / future investigations.  Release of the disclosure schedule
 could allow individuals to use the information contained in it for
criminal activities or to avoid justice.  Releasing the disclosure
schedule of an ongoing trial could cause a mistrial and waste the time and
effort of the court as well as tax payers money.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the
disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. I
consider that the benefit that would result from the information being
disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to your
request for information about the disclosure schedule for the Stephen
Lawrence Murder Trial. The MPS will rarely disclose information relating
to an ongoing trial as to do so could adversely harm that investigation
and could result in a mistrial.

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 email
or contact me on telephone number 020 7230 2003 quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

James Young
SCD Information Manager

Legal Annex

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1)        A public authority which, in relation to any request for
information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in
part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request
or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time
for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-

        (a) states the fact,
        (b) specifies the exemption in question, and
        (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the
exemption applies.

Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has
at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-

        (a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to
conduct with a view to it being ascertained-

                (i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
                (ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of
it,

        (b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in
the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute
criminal proceedings which the         authority has power to conduct, or
        (c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to
conduct.

In complying with their statutory duty under sections 1 and 11 of the
Freedom of Information Act 2000 to release the enclosed information, the
Metropolitan Police Service will not breach the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988. However, the rights of the copyright owner of the
enclosed information will continue to be protected by law.  Applications
for the copyright owner's written permission to reproduce any part of the
attached information should be addressed to MPS Directorate of Legal
Services, 1st Floor (Victoria Block), New Scotland Yard, Victoria, London,
SW1H 0BG.
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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

From: Emlyn Welsh

6 December 2011

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Thanks for all that, but you have not answered my question.

Has the tape recorded material which I have specifically asked you
about been disclosed to the defence in this case?

You know perfectly well what I am asking about, because on 2nd
August 2011 you told me you are not confirming or denying that you
have it.

The department you need to ask is the Directorate of professional
standards, that is the department that has possession of it. Your
officer Jay Howells knows about it, I have spoken to him about it
before.

Yours faithfully,

Emlyn Welsh

Link to this

From: Emlyn Welsh

4 January 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

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 murder of Stephen
Lawrence'.

On 14th November 2011 I submitted an FOI request to ask the MPS
whether or not certain tape recorded material had been disclosed to
the defence solicitors representing Gary Dobson and David Norris,
who have today been sent to prison for life for the murder of
Stephen Lawrence after never having had a fair trial. I am asking
for an internal review into your decision to unlawfully withhold
this information from me, (and indeed from the two defendants).

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,

Emlyn Welsh

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

11 January 2012

Dear  Mr Welsh

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012010000501

I write in connection with your letter dated 4 January 2012 requesting
that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) review its response to your
request for information relating to:

* Original FOI case number 2011110002022.

The review will be conducted in accordance with the MPS complaints
procedure. The MPS endeavour to respond to your complaint by 1 February
2012.

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 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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

2 February 2012

Dear  Mr Welsh,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012010000501

Further to our letter of 11 January 2012, I have unfortunately been unable
to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

* Original FOI case number 2011110002022

I hope to complete your review no later than 29 February 2012. 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.

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

Ms 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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

6 February 2012

Dear Mr Welsh,

Freedom of Information Request Internal Review Reference No: 2012010000501

Whilst I continue to undertake research into your internal review, I wish
to seek clarity in respect of one part of your request.

You refer to a previous case in which the MPS 'neither confirmed nor
denied' certain tape recorded information was held.  I appreciate you have
made previous requests in respect of tape recorded material, but I can
find none that specifically refer to the Stephen Lawrence case.

Please can you provide me with the FOI reference case number for the
previous request you wish me to refer to or else I am likely to be unable
to ascertain what tape-recorded information request you wish me to refer
to.

For reference, your FOI request (dated 14 November) requested the
following:

"I have read in the newspaper today that two men, Gary Dobson and David
Norris have gone on trial at the Old Bailey, charged with the murder of
Stephen Lawrence.
Has all the tape-recorded material which should have been disclosed to the
defence been disclosed, or have you decided to keep it covered up again as
you did in the case of Muktar Ibrahim, Yassin Omar, Ramzi Mohammed, and
Hussain Osman?
For the avoidance of doubt, the tape-recorded material I am asking about
is the material you have already told me you might have, but you're not
confirming or denying it.

If the tape recorded material has been disclosed, please send me a copy of
the disclosure schedule."

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

Yours sincerely

Ms 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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

From: Emlyn Welsh

6 February 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I'm afraid your attempts to make matters unnecessarily
complicated to deter me from pursuing my legitimate request for
information are not going to work.

On 25th January 2011, I made an FOI request for a copy of the tape
recorded meeting between me, Ann Buckley, John Brigden, and a
fourth person, a woman whose name I can not remember. (FOI Ref:
2011020000590)

Your response to this request was (in essence) that you are not
confirming or denying that you have the tape, and in any event you
can not give it to me because to do so would breach other people's
rights under the Data Protection Act.

I am now asking you whether or not the tape recording of this
meeting was disclosed to solicitors representing Gary Dobson and
David Norris in their trial for the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

I am sure you will be aware that Mr. Dobson and Mr. Norris have
appealed their convictions, and this is an issue which I am sure
may very well be raised in their appeal proceedings.

Yours faithfully,

Emlyn Welsh

Link to this

dobson family left an annotation (11 February 2012)

Quote-marks We wish for the details that Mr welsh has requested to be made pulic.We are the immediate family of gary dobson,so we are keen for any information that could shed light on a huge miscarriage of justice.With Regards Mr.Mrs Dobson.

Link to this

name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation (11 February 2012)

Quote-marks On 25th January 2011, I made an FOI request for a copy of the tape recorded meeting between me, Ann Buckley, John Brigden, and a fourth person, a woman whose name I can not remember. (FOI Ref: 2011020000590)

HAVE you been in contact with your MP on this matter and the PHSO?

ALSO have you contacted the ICO?

If a tape exists, then why not ask the Police to give you the transcript as if you were interviewed that is your entitlement - even if they then insist on redacting people who do not consent to you having THEIR material? It might be worth a try.

Link to this

name removed 23 Oct 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation (11 February 2012)

Quote-marks Dear Mr Welsh

I think I know why the Police are not answering your FOI Request.

You asked them whether all the material that SHOULD be disclosed.

Rather than has ALL THE MATERIAL THAT YOU POSSESS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE DEFENCE.

If you make a new request and then ask if this TAPE EXISTS as now the trial is OVER, they cannot now say it is an ongoing trial, and if it is your DPA material, then surely you have an absolute right to know if it exists and whether they hold it as data controllers.

Link to this

S Harris left an annotation (12 February 2012)

Quote-marks Please don't ever ask for a transcript (as per [name removed]'s annotation) - and don't settle for one either if the police want to give it. I have first hand experience of how the police change transcripts from what is actually said on a tape.

Link to this

S Harris left an annotation (12 February 2012)

Quote-marks And as [name removed] says, it is quite right that semantics are very important in FOI requests. The police and CPS will do all they can to hide what is relevant, claiming that it is irrelevant to the case. I am sure there will be relevant material in this case that has not been disclosed - unfortunately it seems rife in all major trials these days. If you ever get to find this relevant material, it will be presented in crate loads that some police officer 'never had the time to go through' and one earth-shattering relevant piece will be found at the bottom of the 50th crate.

Link to this

Ann Reeves left an annotation (13 February 2012)

Quote-marks I totally agree the CPS and the Police will do all they can to deter from the truth being exposed.. just as they did in the Dr Jane Barton case.. 3 times it was at the CPS and it is blatantly obvious to all those who lost their loved ones at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital it is a government cover-up.. Barton's death rate exceeds SHIPMAN. The DoH refused to hand over the Professor Richard Baker's audit on this hospital since 2002. What are they worried about??

Does anyone know how they can withhold this indefinitely which was paid for by the tax payer?

Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

17 February 2012

Dear Mr Welsh,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012010000501

Further to our letter of 6 February 2012, I am now able to provide a
response to your complaint dated 4 January 2012 concerning:

* Original FOI case number 2011110002022

Original Request (dated 14/11/11)
I have read in the newspaper today that two men, Gary Dobson and David
Norris have gone on trial at the Old Bailey, charged with the murder of
Stephen Lawrence.

1.  Has all the tape-recorded material which should have been disclosed to
the defence been disclosed, or have you decided to keep it covered up
again as you did in the case of Muktar Ibrahim, Yassin Omar, Ramzi
Mohammed and Hussain Osman?  

For the avoidance of doubt, the tape recorded material I am asking about
is the material you have already told me you might have but you’re not
confirming or denying it.

2.  If the tape recorded material has been disclosed, please send me a
copy of the disclosure schedule. Not that I’d suspect for one moment that
you might be dishonest you understand.

DECISION

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

* Set aside the original decision

REASON FOR DECISION

The initial MPS response (dated 5/12/11) explained for question one that
the MPS has followed the disclosure rules in relation to the trial.  It
was confirmed that the disclosure of evidence has been exhaustive and
extensive and that all disclosure has been overseen by Counsel.

It was additionally explained that the answer to question one was provided
under our duty to assist but that as the question is not technically for
‘recorded’ information  as defined by Section 8 (2)(c) of the Act in as
much as you appear to seek opinion), it could be seen as an invalid
request.

The original response explained that in respect of question two,
information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)(Investigations)
of the Act. It was explained that under Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act,
Public Authorities are able to withhold information if it was obtained or
recorded for the purposes of investigations, criminal proceedings or civil
proceedings.

In respect of question two, the MPS originally tried to answer your
request as fully as possible by separating your request for the disclosure
schedule from the tape recorded information you also refer to.

On review, and on seeking further clarity from you in my email (dated
6/2/11), I asked you to provide me with the FOIA case reference number for
the previous request you wished me to refer to in question two. I asked
this as only on understanding exactly what tape recorded information you
seek would enable me to answer question two fully.

You responded to me on 6 February 2010, claiming I was attempting to make
matters unnecessarily complicated to deter you from pursuing your request
for information. I wish to clearly state this was not the case.

You then proceeded to clarify that on 25/1/11 you made an FOIA request for
a copy of a tape recorded meeting between you, Ann Buckley, John Brigden
and a fourth person whose name you cannot remember. This request was
logged under case number 20110200000590.

You explained in your email that you are now asking whether or not the
tape recording of this meeting was disclosed to solicitors representing
Gary Dobson and David Norris in their trial for the murder of Stephen
Lawrence. In consideration that this is the very crux of your initial
request and that this point in itself was not referred to in the original
response, I will now confirm the MPS remain required to neither confirm
nor deny whether the MPS holds the tape recorded information you refer to.
The MPS is also required to neither confirm nor deny whether the
information you refer to was required to be disclosed or was disclosed to
the solicitors of Gary Dobson and David Norris.

In consideration that your second request only seeks the disclosure
schedule only if the tape recorded information was disclosed to the
defence, I am not required to consider the disclosure schedule within the
remit of this review.

I have considered your original request for information within the
provisions set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and have today
decided that Section 40(5) is engaged.

This letter consequently represents a Refusal Notice under Section 17(1)
in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).  Please
see the Legal Annex for extracts of the legislation referred to in this
response.

The Metropolitan Police Service neither confirms nor denies that it holds
the requested information, as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 does not apply by virtue of the following
exemption:

Section 40(5) - Personal Information
When processing requests for information under the Freedom of Information
Act, public authorities have two duties to consider.  Section 1(1)(a) is
the duty to confirm or deny that the requested information is held, and
section 1(1)(b) is to the duty to communicate the requested information to
the applicant.

Both of these duties have equal weight. The principle of 'neither confirm
nor deny' is long established, and it is recognised that in some
circumstances simply confirming or denying whether requested information
was held could itself disclose sensitive and damaging information.  This
fact was itself recognised by the legislators - all exemptions except
section 21 (information accessible by other means) include a provision
which enable public authorities to neither confirm nor deny that it holds
the requested information in certain situations.  More information can be
found on the Information Commissioner's website:

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

The ICO's guidance on what constitutes personal data shows that this can
consist of a wide range of information:

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

It is on the basis of this guidance that I today apply section 40(5) to
your specific request.

You have now made a number of previous requests and complaints for
information relating to a particular tape recorded meeting you claim is
between yourself and third parties.The MPS continue to neither confirm nor
deny whether the information is held under Section 40(5) of the Act. In
this case, by confirming or denying whether or not the MPS holds the
information you have requested, requires the MPS to again confirm or deny
whether that tape is held. To confirm or deny whether the tape is held
would lead to the identification an individual and disclose personal
information about that individual (whether the information was held or
not).

In these circumstances, to confirm or deny whether the MPS hold the
information that you have requested could also lead to public inferences
as to who, if anyone, had involvement with the police or a third party
individual.

This would therefore be in breach of the individuals rights to privacy
under the Data Protection Act 1998 and would breach the first principle
(please see the Legal Annex).  Whether the MPS does or does not hold the
tape you have requested or the documents you have requested, I do not
believe that connected individuals would reasonably expect this
confirmation or denial to be released to the world through a Freedom of
Information Act disclosure.  Such a disclosure under the Act continues to
be considered unfair and unlawful.

In consideration of your request, I can confirm that the MPS would be in
breach of the first Data Protection principle by confirming or denying if
the information you have requested is held. This principle (set out in
Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998) states that data should be
processed fairly and lawfully.

Under section 40(5)(b)(i) of the Freedom of Information Act, the MPS is
not required to comply with the requirements of section 1(1)(a) i.e. the
duty to inform the applicant whether or not the information is held.
 Section 40(5)(b)(i) is applicable in circumstances where a confirmation
or denial in relation to whether information is held would breach one or
more of the data protection principles specified within the Data
Protection Act 1998. In this instance, for the MPS to confirm or deny
whether information is held would disclose whether or not an individual
has been in contact with the police.  This would be personal data as
defined within section 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 which states: as:

‘data which relate to a living individual who can be identified—
(a) from those data, or
(b) from those data and other information which is in the possession of,
or is likely to come into the possession of, the data controller’

In this instance, for the MPS to confirm or deny whether information is
held would disclose to the world at large whether a particular individual
or address is of interest to the police.

Would confirming or denying whether information is held breach one of the
data protection principles?

In considering whether to confirm or deny whether the information
requested is held would be in breach of any of the Data Protection
Principles, the 1st data protection principle relating to ‘fair and lawful
processing’ is relevant which states:

1 Personal data shall be processed fairly and lawfully and, in particular,
shall not be processed unless—
(a) at least one of the conditions in Schedule 2, and
(b) in the case of sensitive personal data, at least one of the conditions
in Schedule 3 is also met.

To determine whether disclosure of this information would be fair, it is
necessary to consider whether Schedule 2, Condition 6 of the Data
Protection act is met.

Condition 6 requires that:
‘6.—(1)The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate
interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties
to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted
in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms
or legitimate interests of the data subject.’

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance titled ‘the exemption
for personal information’ suggests that the following factors are relevant
in deciding whether Condition 6 is applicable:

1. there must be a legitimate public interest in disclosure;
2. the disclosure must be necessary to meet that public interest; and
3. the disclosure must not cause unwarranted harm to the interests of the
individual.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/...

It is pertinent to note that the public interest is not what interests the
public but what will be of greater good, if released, to the community as
a whole.

In relation to balancing the rights of data subjects and the legitimate
interests in disclosure the ICO guidance also states:

‘Public authorities should note that this is not the same as the public
interest test for qualified exemptions and there is no assumption of
disclosure.’

Therefore, to justify disclosing personal data, it would be necessary to
establish a substantial public interest that would outweigh the rights of
the data subject.

Is there a legitimate public interest in disclosure?

The MPS recognises that there may be a legitimate public interest in
confirming or denying whether information is held in relation to this high
profile case. A legitimate interest is inherent in the disclosure of
information upon request under the Freedom of Information Act given the
associated benefit of enhancing the transparency and accountability of
public authorities.

Is disclosure necessary to meet that public interest?

It is possible to meet the public interest identified above without
disclosing the information requested.

There are already established procedures in place to ensure the MPS has
disclosed relevant information to the defense in this case. Additionally
there is a formal route of appeal should the defense wish to raise any
possible fault with the trial.

Will disclosure cause unwarranted harm to the interests of the individual?

Confirmation of whether or not the information requested is held may cause
unwarranted harm to the interests of individuals.

The purposes for which the MPS uses personal data are stated within the
MPS Fair Processing Notice which can be found via the link below:
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/other_...

Section 1 of this document outlines 2 broad purposes for which the MPS
obtains, holds, uses and discloses personal data:

* The Policing Purpose - which includes the prevention and detection of
crime; apprehension and prosecution of offenders; protecting life and
property; Preserving order; maintenance of law and order; rendering
assistance to the public in accordance with force policies and
procedures; National security; defending civil proceedings and any
duty or responsibility of the police arising from common or statute
law.

* The provision of services to support the Policing Purpose

Therefore, it would be reasonable for an individual to expect any
information about them held by the MPS to only be used to support a
policing purpose.  This supports the argument that disclosure of the
information requested, if held, would be unfair to individuals.

Furthermore, the conditions specified in Schedule 2 and 3 of the Data
Protection Act 1998 have an overriding requirement for the processing of
personal data to uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms afforded to
data subjects.  Individuals have the right to respect for their private
and family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which
states:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his
home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise
of this right except such as in accordance with the law and is necessary
in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public
safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of
disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In relation to your request, it would be necessary to disclose personal
data to either confirm or deny whether information is held.

Section 40 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is designed to address
information that is covered by the Data Protection Act 1998.  Under
Section 40(5)(b)(i), the MPS is not required to confirm information is
held if the confirmation or denial would contravene any of the data
protection principles.  In this instance, for the reasons outlined above
and communicated to you in the initial MPS response to your request, I
have concluded that confirming or denying whether or not the information
requested is held would contravene the 1st data protection principle,
relating to the fair and lawful processing of personal data.

Section 16 - Duty to Assist
As explained in previous decisions in relation to the tape you refer to,
the MPS has a duty to advise and assist applicants.  In this case, it is
appropriate to explain that should you require information the MPS may
hold about you (such as a tape recorded of yourself), I would advise you
to make a Subject Access Request for that information.

You can do this by completing the form 3019 (available from any MPS
Station, or from http://www.met.police.uk/information/req...,
or by calling 020 7161 3500 - please select option 1). Please note that a
fee of £10.00 and proof of identification is required to process a
request. This process may also take up to 40 days from receipt of your
completed application.

Advising you of this route to access information does not in itself either
confirm or deny that the information you have requested exists.  Please
also note, if information is held and subsequently disclosed, third party
data is likely to be redacted.

A copy of the Data Protection Act, for your information, can be viewed at
the following link:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukp...

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

Ms S. Strong
FOIA Complaints Officer

Legal Annex

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:
(1)A public authority which, in relation to any request for information,
is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision of Part II relating
to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim
that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying
with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which—
(a)states that fact,
(b)specifies the exemption in question, and
(c)states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.

Section 40(5) of the Act provides:
(5)The duty to confirm or deny—
(a)does not arise in relation to information which is (or if it were held
by the public authority would be) exempt information by virtue of
subsection (1), and
(b)does not arise in relation to other information if or to the extent
that either—
(i)the giving to a member of the public of the confirmation or denial that
would have to be given to comply with section 1(1)(a) would (apart from
this Act) contravene any of the data protection principles or section 10
of the Data Protection Act 1998 or would do so if the exemptions in
section 33A(1) of that Act were disregarded, or
(ii)by virtue of any provision of Part IV of the Data Protection Act 1998
the information is exempt from section 7(1)(a) of that Act (data subject’s
right to be informed whether personal data being processed).
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, within forty (40) working days from
the date of the refusal notice, and addressed to:

FOI Complaint
Public Access Office
PO Box 57192
London
SW6 1SF
[email address]

In all possible circumstances the MPS will aim to respond to your
complaint within 20 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

Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your
communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are
here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

 

Consider our environment - please do not print this email unless
absolutely necessary.

NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to
copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of
the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please
notify the sender and delete it from your system.  To avoid incurring
legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this
email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are
monitored to the extent permitted by law.  Consequently, any email and/or
attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are
authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by
email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements
reached with other employees or agents.  The security of this email and
any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned
but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur
during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in
this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

Link to this

From: Emlyn Welsh

17 February 2012

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

That is an awfully long-winded response, and once again jam-packed
with legal jargon designed to intimidate me and try and deter me
from pursuing my request for information to which I am legally
entitled.

Would it not just be easier to admit that you have possession of
the tape recorded material I have asked you about, and that it
should have been disclosed in the Stephen Lawrence case ?

I am in contact with Gary Dobson's family, and if you think they
are going to be satisfied with the pile of inane nonsense that you
have tried to put forward as a satisfactory response to my request,
I think you are going to be very, very, disappointed.

Yours faithfully,

Emlyn Welsh

Link to this

dobson family left an annotation (17 February 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for the details that Mr welsh has requested to be made public.
I am the sister of gary dobson,so i am keen for any information that could shed light on a huge miscarriage of justice. Sincerely Hayley Dobson

Link to this

Cara goldsmith left an annotation (17 February 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for the details that Mr welsh has requested to be made pulic. I am keen for any information that could shed light on a huge miscarriage of justice.With Regards mrs c goldsmith

Link to this

smith family left an annotation (17 February 2012)

Quote-marks We wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public. As part of the extended family of Gary Dobson we are keen on any information that will shed light on this huge miscarriage of justice!

With regards

Mr and Mrs T Smith

Link to this

Jan left an annotation (17 February 2012)

Quote-marks I would like the details that Mr Welsh has requested to be made public, which you have to do, what are the (MPS) hidding??? There has been a miscarriage of justice made and the public what answers. With regards Jan Van Doorn

Link to this

Emlyn Welsh left an annotation (17 February 2012)

Quote-marks Hayley/Jan/Mr & Mrs Smith,

Could you please contact Gary's solicitors and ask them if they know about this ? As you can see the Metropolitan police are now running around like the proverbial headless chickens trying to cover up the terrible crimes they have committed. Now is the time to get the solicitors in gear !

Link to this

tracy davis left an annotation (17 February 2012)

Quote-marks We wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public. As part of the extended family of Gary Dobson we are keen on any information that will shed light on this huge miscarriage of justice!

With regards
ms tracy davis

Link to this

tracy davis left an annotation (17 February 2012)

Quote-marks We wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public. As part of the extended family of Gary Dobson we are keen on any information that will shed light on this huge miscarriage of justice!

With regards

ms t davis

Link to this

Janice Gillard left an annotation (18 February 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public. As a friend of the family of Gary Dobson I would like any witheld information concerning this huge miscarriage of justice to be brought to light.

With regards,

Janice Gillard

Link to this

tracy davis left an annotation (18 February 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public. As a friend of the family of Gary Dobson I would like any witheld information concerning this huge miscarriage of justice to be brought to light.

With regards,

t .cordaroy

Link to this

mrs karen binks left an annotation (20 February 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public. As a friend of the family of Gary Dobson I would like any witheld information concerning this huge miscarriage of justice to be brought to light.

With regards,
k binks

Link to this

Jodi Northwood left an annotation (20 February 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public. I would like any information concerning this huge miscarriage of justice to be brought to light.

Miss J Northwood

Link to this

Mr Carter left an annotation (24 February 2012)

Quote-marks All information requested by Mr Welsh needs to be provided to him. It's in the public interest for all information relating to this terrible miscarriage of justice to be made available.

Mr Carter

Link to this

S Harris left an annotation ( 6 March 2012)

Quote-marks I presume you have seen this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...

It just goes to show the extent of non-disclosure by the Met Police DPS. Yates was in charge of this as he was in charge of the R v Clark & Drury (Neil Putnam supergrass) fiasco where there was a large amount of non-disclosure. Yates was also in supreme charge of the latest Daniel Morgan murder trial where there was 18 crates of non-disclosure which would have (and actually did) aid the defence. As it was, the judges in both of these threw the cases out because of non-disclosure and lack of evidence.

Link to this

Emlyn Welsh left an annotation ( 7 March 2012)

Quote-marks Evidence of police misconduct passed to Clive Efford MP.

Link to this

Norris left an annotation (12 March 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public. As part of the family of the innocent party Mr David Norris I am requesting any information that will shed light on this huge miscarriage of justice!

With regards

Mr Norris

Link to this

lisa johnson left an annotation (18 March 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for all information requested by mr welsh to be made available to right this appalling miscarriage of justice gary dobson and david norris are innocent with regards lisa johnsono

Link to this

lisa johnson left an annotation (18 March 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for all information requested by mr welsh to be made available to right this appalling miscarriage of justice gary dobson and david norris are innocent with regards lisa johnson

Link to this

Paul Richardson left an annotation ( 9 May 2012)

Quote-marks I wish for all information requested by Mr Welsh to be made public.
As a friend of the family of Gary Dobson I would like any withheld information concerning this huge miscarriage of justice to be brought to light.

With regards

Paul Richardson

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) only:

Follow this request

There are 16 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?