use of directed energy devices in the UK

The request was partially successful.

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Ministry of Defence,

I would like to request answers to the following questions under Freedom of Information Act 2000:

With reference to section 2A8 'Emerging Technology' of MOD document JWP3-80 (ics-www.leeds.ac.uk/papers/pmt/exhibits/2270/jwp3_80.pdf), can you confirm or deny that directed energy devices are being used on persons within the UK?

If the answer is in the affirmative; can you tell me if there is any specific policy or doctrine in place to instruct against misuse?

Could you please specify the name and nature of any such document?

Can you tell me the appropriate means, channel or method by which someone might complain if they believed that they were the subject of the misuse of such technology?

Yours faithfully,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Ministry of Defence,

By law, you should have replied to my request by 4th September. Please could you explain why this deadline has not been met; and fulfill the request as soon as possible? Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Donnie Mackenzie

Def Res-Parliamentary (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Please find attached the response to your request.

 

I apologise for the delay in responding.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Defence Resources Secretariat

Dear Def Res-Parliamentary (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for finally responding. I note that you did not give an explanation as to why the response was delayed by about 3 times the normal waiting time. Can you please detail this? Your response appeared only a couple of days after my complaint was submitted to the Information Commissioners Office.

With regard to the content of the response, I would like to state that I believe that it is innaccurate.

Having spoken to people within electromagnetic shielding companies, industry specialists, ex military employees and others who have underlined my research, I have found that there are many people in the public domain who are having problems with directed energy targeting.

Such directed energy use is known to be classified as a form of Electronic Attack which comes under Electronic Warfare. Electronic warfare is repeatedly listed as a key element of Information Operations, although Information Operations are regarded as "soft-ops" which take place on friendly and home soil as well as hostile territories.

To quote from page 2-6 of Joint Warfare Publication 3-80 on Information Operations:

'Info Ops staff will make use of tools to Influence Will and will affect those capabilities that will allow will to be translated into action. These are discussed in more detail at Annex 2A. Info Ops must not be limited to these means but is constrained only by imagination and the availability of resources.

A. Influence Activity. Actions to influence will traditionally make use of tools such as Psychological Operations (PSYOPS), Deception, Electronic Warfare (EW), specifically targeted physical destruction and Computer Network Operations (CNO), which incorporates attack, exploitation and defence. '

B. Counter Command Activity. Actions to affect capability can make use of any appropriate tools however they will commonly resort to specifically targeted physical destruction, the use of emerging technology, offensive EW and CNO. '

I would note that the underlining has been added by myself to highlight key words.

As referenced previously Annex 2A (section 8) is indeed entitled 'Emerging Technology' and the first sentence and only reference in it to the equipment used says:

'Emerging Technology includes the use of directed energy weapons such as Radio Frequency, Laser, and acoustic and other non lethal weapons.'

Furthermore, page 3-4 refers to the two 'key methods for achieving objectives' (for a campaign) as being:
(1) Psychological Operations (PSYOPS)
(2) Electronic Warfare(EW).

Having done research into Information Operations I have found that Electronic Warfare has been intrinsically linked with them since at least as early as 1964 when the first chapter of the Association of Old Crows was formed in the USA. (http://www.ukaoc.org/index.html)

Having spoken to numerous professors who have specialisms pertaining to the development of Electronic Warfare and it's effects on humans, I have found that the lack of information in the public domain is not an accident. Instead it is part of a very conscious effort on the part of governmental bodies to keep what research and development has been done under wraps. While details have emerged of other ethically dubious testing on humans using chemical and biological matter for instance (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/m..., these of course are more apparent by the trail left.

There is a long history of Research and Development(R&D) by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), it's previous manifestations, splinter privatisations like Qinetiq, and even Universities into all manner of matters relating to national security, defence and military. Jonathan Lyle hints at the scope of DSTL alone here:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Defenc...

When someone looks at the range of what is openly being done by groups like DSTL, the dearth of information on different types of EW radiation effects is conspicuous by its absence. But indeed even cursory web research shows that every major defence contractor is investing heavily in the burgeoning development of directed energy EW equipment. The major military University in Cranfield-which holds courses including Information Operations and multiple types of Electronic Warfare-is holding a sizeable Directed Energy Symposium in a matter of days:
http://www.cranfield.ac.uk/cds/symposia/....

The connections between parties involved in Information Operations and Electronic Warfare hardware/software/consultancy specialists is tangible. Major contracts exist between UK government agencies and organisations like Cohort Plc (£44,300,000 was reported as coming from MOD on its 2011/12 annual report), and Selex Galileo. Those with a history of expertise in the areas of EW (especially RAF trained) are known to have been and remain very active within the branch of Targeting and Information Operations (DTIO/TIO, http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Targ....

In light of the above, I would like you to ponder and re-research the request posed to you. It is essential that the honesty and integrity of the Ministry of Defence is preserved; and I believe an genuine and candid approach to dealing with public queries is the best way to do this.

Finally I would like to ask why your response does not have an author and is labelled only Defence Resources Secretariat? I would like to request than in future communication, the individual responsible details their name, as was done in previous communication by Simon Skerritt (C2).

I would like to set a deadline on this response of 10 days from date of sending. My intention is to forward a further complaint to the Information Commissioners Office if this is not met.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Def Res-Parliamentary (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Please find attached the response to your message.

Yours sincerely

Defence Resources Secretariat

Dear Def Res-Parliamentary (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your response dated 12th October. In your response you stated that that:
'upon reflection, the material you have asked us to look at does not affect the response provided to you on 4th October. '

However, you also stated that you 'reviewed the response provided' and believe that you had made an 'error' and 'should have stated clearly that the response was ‘information not held’.'

In my belief these two statements-taken in the context of the previous letter referred to-constitute a contradiction.

I would like to politely ask that you provide digital copies of the communications you made and recieved in order to establish the position you came to. I would also like to request that you do this within the same timescale as the last response was provided.

Thanks again.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Def Res-Parliamentary (MULTIUSER),

After recieving guidance I am writing to request that you refer the last response given for an internal review.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Acknowledgement of Request for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Internal Review

Your request for an independent internal review addressed to Defence
Resources Secretariat, dated 08 November 2012, has been forwarded to the
Chief Information Officer’s department in MOD Main Building. 

The Department's internal target for completing internal reviews is 20
working days and we therefore aim to complete the review and respond to
you by 06 December 2012. 

The review will involve a full, independent, reconsideration of the
handling of the case as well as the final decision.

Yours sincerely,

MOD Internal Review Team

 

 

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for the prompt response. I am also advised that the request to have the communication information leading to the response given should be treated as a new Freedom of Information request. So I would appreciate a prompt response on that too.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Please find attached the internal review response to your request for
information, our reference 08-08-2012-125045-0.

 

Yours sincerely,

FOI Internal Review Team

 

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Thanks for the Internal Review response within the timeframe.

You mention in conclusion that if any aspect of the review was unclear you would be happy to explain.

When you say that you carried out 'an extensive search of the department', it is unclear what department you searched. Could you make this clear?

As an optional addition, it would demonstrate some honesty if you could specify what you looked for. I could think of a multitude of different angles with which to investigate for a conclusive answer.

You mentioned also that there was no relevant information which could 'directly answer' the question. I would note that I would be happy for you to release any information which would answer the main question either directly or indirectly. And I think there is an extreme and obvious public interest in you doing so.

I should say before finishing that the component request for communication info on 15th October (and mentioned on 9th November) has still not recieved a response. So if you could remind the relevant individual I would appreciate that.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Thank you for your email.

The Department that was searched was the Ministry of Defence. Requests
under the Act are directed at a public authority as a whole, not at
distinct sections within it. As such we have an obligation to search
within the entire MOD for any recorded information in scope of a
request.

In order to under-take this search, I forwarded your request to any area
of the MOD which might conceivably hold information in scope of your
request. These areas within the MOD then looked for any recorded
information that could answer the questions you asked. After conducting
a search, each area of the MOD responded by saying that they held no
recorded information.

I can confirm that the MOD holds no information that can either directly
or indirectly answer your question.

I hope that this email helps to clarify the MOD's previous response. If
you remain dissatisfied with the review, you may make a complaint to the
Information Commissioner under the provisions of section 50 of the Act.
Further details of the role and powers of the Commissioner can be found
on his website at: www.ico.gov.uk. His address is: Information
Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire,
SK9 5AF. Fax 01625 524 510.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Internal Review Team

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

Thanks for your response. I would like to request digital copies of those e-mails also as a new FOI request.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Donnie Mackenzie left an annotation ()

In particular I would like the content of the emails, the departments,senders and the date.

Thanks again.

Dear CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER),

I would also like to add another FOI request in regard to the following quote mentioned above in JWP 3-80:

'Emerging Technology includes the use of directed energy weapons such as Radio Frequency, Laser, and acoustic and other non lethal weapons.'

Please could you supply an inventory list of all of these assets which MOD has access to. I would define access as something which MOD has the ability to use or initiate the use of by others, either directly, through proxy, or in any other fashion.

If this exceeds the total amount of hours please prioritise in this order:

1.Space based payloads
2.Land based payloads
3.Air and Sea based payloads

This brings the total FOI requests in this link pending a first response to 3.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Donnie Mackenzie left an annotation ()

I should add that the term 'payload' was mistakenly used for non space related devices; and that you should not rule out anything on this basis.

CIO-Sec-mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    20121220 Mackenzie Requested Information Redacted Emails 05 12 2012 104835 002 U.PDF.pdf

    1.8M Download View as HTML

Our Reference: 05-12-2012-104835-002 

 

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Thank you for your email of 4 December 2012 which has been considered to
be a request for information in accordance with the Freedom of Information
Act 2000. It has been passed to my department and I have been asked to
respond. In your request you asked for ‘digital copies of those e-mails.’
‘Those emails’ refer to those sent out and received by
CIO-CI-AccessReview4 during a search for information conducted for an
internal review of your request reference 08-08-2012-125045-002.

 

We have now completed a search for the information you requested and I can
confirm that information in scope of your request is held and is now being
disclosed to you. However, some information held by the Department which
falls within scope of your request is exempt from release under section 40
of the Freedom of Information Act and is therefore withheld. Personal
information relating to the requester is exempt from release under section
40(1) of the Act. Personal information relating to third parties who are
still living is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the Act. The
requested document contains numerous names and contact details of
employees of the MOD, as well as references to you.  As a response to an
FOI request is regarded as a release to the public at large, not just
yourself as the requester, all these personal data have been redacted.
Section 40 is an absolute exemption and hence no public interest test is
required.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Deputy Chief Information Officer, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[1]http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

CIO Secretariat

 

CIO-Secretariat | Ministry of Defence | Level 2, Zone M | Main Building |
Whitehall | London | SW1A 2HB

Telephone (Switchboard): 020 721 89000

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Dear CIO-Sec-mailbox (MULTIUSER),

Thanks for your response providing some of the information requested on 4th December.

I would like to inform you that it is my intention to respond to this in detail following the production of the information requested on the 15th of October.

The only exception I will make to this is to ask for further clarification on what was mentioned on page 2 of the data released.

It states that "Less Than Lethal Effect weapon systems" were purchased and could 'be construed as "being used on people in the UK"' for 'Pre-deployment Training'.

I note that despite your choice to respond to the later request for communication first; the emails you have produced state that you have been provided with "all the previous correspondance regarding this request".

As such I anticipate a fairly prompt production of the information. I hope not to be dissapointed.

Thanks again

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear CIO Secretariat,

Before starting I would like to mention that I am still awaiting any kind of response to my previous request for the e-mails generated in coming to the first response (15th October), as well as the request for the inventory of Directed Energy Devices (4th December).

The following text pertains to the emails you have provided on 21st December which were generated at the Internal Review stage. I am looking for clarification on a number of matters.

Due to ongoing problems with selective responses from the MOD, I am going to employ an alphabet based list approach so that any problems not responded to can be quickly and easily identified.

PREVIOUS CONTACT

A.
As referenced above, SECEC-Land3 stated on page 2 that a less than lethal effect weapons system had been tested on “people in the UK”. I am still waiting for clarification on this.

MISSING INFORMATION OR ATTACHMENTS

Given that this is digital information which I requested, I do not understand why so much of it is grainy or beyond visibility. It is almost as if some sort of image editing has been applied to it.

B.
On page 22 beneath (or within) the response from DCDC-Coord SO2 on 22nd November there is a whole paragraph of the page which is unreadable. Can I please have the original copy with the information which is missing there?

C.
On Pages 25 (lower e-mail) and 27 the relevant departments seem to have been redacted along with the personal info. This is unlike all the other emails provided which display departments. Could you please provide the content with the relevant department specified or clarify why this was omitted?

D.
On page 28 the top e-mail dated 14th November specifies that there are e-mail attachments. Can you please provide the content or clarify why it was omitted?

E.
On page 30 the top e-mail dated 13th November specifies an attachment which has not been provided. Can you please provide the content or clarify why it was omitted?

F.
The top right of page 30 says that it is page 1 of 2, however there is no page 2. Can you please provide it or clarify why it was omitted?

RECIPIENTS AND RESPONDENTS

Guidance from respondents:

G.
On page 5 LF-SEC &GROUP responds that he/she “can not comment on any special projects that may or may not be in use by special forces.” For an answer on that the question would need to be asked of “CAP Special projects (SP) or Director Special Forces (DSF).”
Can you confirm or deny whether or not either of these sections were contacted and if so please confirm which e-mails were from them?

H.
On page 22 the respondent (seems to be Development Concepts and Doctrine Centre) mentioned that it would be best to contact CAP DTA. Can you clarify whether he/she/they were contacted and responded, and if so which e-mail response is from them?

I.
On page 8 the PJHQ response guides to branches dealing with CT for an appropriate response. Can you clarify whether they were contacted and whether they responded. If they did can you specify which email response came from them?

J.
It states in a telling e-mail on page 18 from ACP-CH-IHL (Sec Pol Ops Du BM2) that the 'practitioners' should be contacted not the 'guardians of policy'.

After providing a quote from an MOD document the e-mail specified that “This is the information we have in ACP; it informs doctrine and developments in science and technology, and training by practitioners. You need to find the practitioners, not the guardians of policy to answer the questions”

Essentially the person claiming to represent the department which governs policy (seems to be Arms Control Unit(Arms control and counter proliferation policy)) is there stating that the policy makers do not know how the people they are responsible for are using such devices. I would like to note that this appears to be an extremely significant and telling response.

Can you clarify whether you know which practitioners they were referring to and whether they were contacted and responded? If so could you please specify which response came from them?

K.
On Page 25 DSTL responded “To date I have received nil returns from the departments”

This indicates that some departments had not responded. Can you please clarify which departments of DSTL had responded to that sender?

L.
Below I have listed the departments you disclosed which emails were sent to and the ones which responded.

Outgoing e-mails:

SecEC-Land3 (Smart Approvals Guidance-Smart Approvals)
Cap CI-BM4
SecEC-AirtTL
SecEC-Land&OpsTL
SecEC-Land1
SecEC-Land2
SecEC-Land3
SecEC-Ops1
SecEC-ISTL
SEC EC IS2
SecEC-Hd
SecEC-MarTL
LF-Eqpt-COS
LF-Sec-MS&E1-SO1
LF Eqpt-Progres-DCC-SO2
LF-Sec-&Group
PJHQ-J8-FOI-Group
DEC SEC-PolSec LE-JSC-WPNS (multiuser)
DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs
DES Sec-FOI
ACP-CH-IHL
DGFin
DGStrat BusmanPol-1
DST-Strategy SEC 1
Sec Pol Ops-FOI
CLS-Sec 1
DCDC-Coord SO2
DSTL

Incoming e-mails:

SecEC-Land3 (Smart Approvals Guidance-Smart Approvals)
Cap CI-BM4 (& on behalf of Sec EC IS)
SecEC ISTL
SecEC-AirtTL
PJHQ-J8-FOI-Group
SEC EC IS2
(LF-Sec-MS&E1-SO1) LF-EQPT-ProgRes-DCC-SO2
ACP-CH-IHL
DCDC-Coord SO2
DSTL

Although some respondents indicate that they are vouching for others under them, the number of people who responded still seems vastly less than those who were sent e-mails. Can you clear up which depts failed to respond?

M.
Last but certainly not least, there are certain key groups which I believe are especially relevant to the request. I would like to know whether they were contacted and which responses would pertain to them if they were. If they did not respond I would like clarification as to why. These are:

1. Targeting and Information Operations (TIO) (Old War Office Building, Whitehall, London)
2. Actual Information Operations in the UK
3. Electronic Warfare Operational Support (EWOS), RAF Waddington (or any of it's 11 other centres throughout the UK)
4. the Cyber and Influence section of DSTL

I realize this will take a little time to respond to but I hope for a full reply in due course as well as to the other requests mentioned above.

Thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear CIO-Sec-mailbox (MULTIUSER),

I am dissatisfied as I have twice sought guidance and clarification on the response sent on 21st December without response.

I seek all information which has not been disclosed and is not personal information. As such I would like to request an Internal Review into the release.

A response to points not related to missing information would be welcome also.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-Sec-mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr. Mackenzie,

Thank you for your email of 3 February 2013 in which you raised points of
clarification on the information previously provided to under the Freedom
of Information Act in response to your request (reference
05-12-2012-104835-002).  Under section 16 of the Act, the Department has a
duty to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to
do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for
information to it. Such duty is not unbounded, however, and you should be
aware that the Department has no obligation to maintain an on-going
dialogue with a requester in response to new points of clarification
raised by a requester about information provided previously.  New requests
for information will, however be considered by the Department on their
merits.    

I have considered your questions in A-F in the context of seeking
clarification of information previously provided in response to your
initial request (ref: 05-12-2012-104835-002 ) and, in compliance with the
Department’s duty under section 16 of the Act, I have responded to your
points below.

A.      ‘SecEC-Land3 stated on page 2 that a less than lethal effect
weapons system had been tested on ‘‘peoples in the UK’’. I am still
waiting for clarification on this.’

At no point in the information provided to you on 21 December 2012 was it
stated that ‘a less than lethal effect weapons system had been tested on
‘‘peoples in the UK’’’. The exact wording of the information was, with
regard to a ‘laser dazzle system’, that ‘a number were purchased for
Pre-Deployment Training, and can therefore be construed as ‘‘being used on
persons within the UK.’’’ I can clarify that the only information which
was located in scope of your original request with regard to directed
energy devices (ref: 06-08-2012-125045-002) was that a laser dazzle system
formed part of a Less than Lethal Effect weapon system which was purchased
for operations in Afghanistan. SecEC-Land3 considered that this might have
been in scope of your request for information about direct energy devices,
as at some point it may have been used on ‘people in the UK’ during
pre-deployment training. However, this was considered out of scope of your
request as there was no recorded information held by the Department which
confirmed that this was the case.

B.     ‘‘On page 22 beneath (or within) the response from DCDC-Coord SO2
on 22nd November there is a whole paragraph of the page which is
unreadable. Can I please have the original copy with the information which
is missing there?

I apologise for the lack of visibility with regard to this information.
The information missing on page 22 was:

‘‘Latest update and all DCDC publications use this [1]link.

For users outside DII,
use [2]http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/micros...

This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain
information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and
exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney
work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy
this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if
this is an electronic communication. Thank you.’’

C.     ‘‘On Pages 25 (lower e-mail) and 27 the relevant departments seem
to have been redacted along with the personal info. This is unlike all the
other emails provided which display departments. Could you please provide
the content with the relevant department specified or clarify why this was
omitted?’’

This information was omitted due to the fact that the email was in the
format of the name of an individual and hence exempt under section 40(2)
of the Act. However, I can confirm that the email was from DSTL.

D.     ‘‘On page 28 the top e-mail dated 14th November specifies that
there are e-mail attachments. Can you please provide the content or
clarify why it was omitted?’’

This information was omitted as you requested the emails sent and received
by CIO-CI-AccessReview4 during the internal review conducted for your
request. The Act does not allow individuals to request documentation, but
rather the information within documents. As such, the information
considered within scope of your request was only that which was in the
emails sent or received by CIO-CI-AccessReview4 in the first instance. The
information included in the attachments was, as such, considered to be out
of scope of your request.

E.     ‘‘On page 30 the top e-mail dated 13th November specifies an
attachment which has not been provided. Can you please provide the content
or clarify why it was omitted?’’

Please see the response to D.      

F.      The top right of page 30 says that it is page 1 of 2, however
there is no page 2. Can you please provide it or clarify why it was
omitted?

I apologise for omitting this page from the response. The information on
the omitted page is: ‘[3]IR@mod.uk’    

Your questions in G-M have been regarded by the Department as a fresh
request and have been logged as such (reference: 04-02-2013-125955-004).
This is because these questions can only be answered with information
which is out of scope of your original request (which was for emails about
the handing of your original request between the internal review team and
the wider Department – all of which were provided). It should also be
noted that the Act does not give a right to receive answers to questions
unless these are in the form of recorded information held at the time of
the request.

 

Whilst the Act does not generally require a public authority to consider
the reason a requester is seeking certain information I note that much of
the information you seek is seemingly aimed at carrying out an
investigation into whether you have received all of the information held
by the Department in scope of your original request. If this is so and you
remain dissatisfied following the internal review conducted into the
Department’s handling of your initial request I recommend that you take
your complaint to the Information Commissioner, who is best placed to
investigate under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of
Information Act. Further details of the role and powers of the Information
Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

CIO Secretariat

 

CIO-Secretariat | Ministry of Defence | Level 2, Zone M | Main Building |
Whitehall | London | SW1A 2HB

Telephone (Switchboard): 020 721 89000

 

References

Visible links
1. blocked::http://www.dcdc.dii.r.mil.uk/Objects/5/6...
http://www.dcdc.dii.r.mil.uk/Objects/5/6...
file:///tmp/blocked::http:/www.dcdc.dii.r.mil.uk/Objects/5/6E0CC45E3FF746A7A631CDD47A82C9AC.htm
2. blocked::http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/micros...
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/micros...
file:///tmp/blocked::http:/www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/microsite/dcdc/
3. blocked::mailto:[email address]
mailto:[email address]
file:///tmp/blocked::mailto:[email address]

Dear CIO-Sec,

Thanks for your response.

I am unsure on a couple of small points.

When you mention the "internal review conducted into the Department’s handling of your initial request". Are you referring to the fresh internal review I requested on 18th February, or the review to which the information provided came from?

When you mention that "questions in G-M have been regarded by the Department as a fresh request and have been logged as such....because these questions can only be answered with information which is out of scope of your original request", are you indicating that the departments listed in the emails were expected to vouch for those I queried?

Also, can I expect a response to my requests within this webpage dated 15-10-12 (the original emails) and 4-12-12 (the directed energy devices)?

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-Sec-mailbox (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Ref: 04-02-2013-125955-004

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Thank you for your email of 3 ^ February 2013 requesting the following
information:

G. On page 5 LF-SEC &GROUP responds that he/she “can not comment on any
special projects that may or may not be in use by special forces.” For an
answer on that the question would need to be asked of “CAP Special
projects (SP) or Director Special Forces (DSF).” Can you confirm or deny
whether or not either of these sections were contacted and if so please
confirm which e-mails were from them?

H. On page 22 the respondent (seems to be Development Concepts and
Doctrine Centre) mentioned that it would be best to contact CAP DTA. Can
you clarify whether he/she/they were contacted and responded, and if so
which e-mail response is from them?

I. On page 8 the PJHQ response guides to branches dealing with CT for an
appropriate response. Can you clarify whether they were contacted and
whether they responded. If they did can you specify which email response
came from them?

J. It states in a telling e-mail on page 18 from ACP-CH-IHL (Sec Pol Ops
Du BM2) that the 'practitioners' should be contacted not the 'guardians of
policy'.

After providing a quote from an MOD document the e-mail specified that
“This is the information we have in ACP; it informs doctrine and
developments in science and technology, and training by practitioners. You
need to find the practitioners, not the guardians of policy to answer the
questions”

Essentially the person claiming to represent the department which governs
policy (seems to be Arms Control Unit(Arms control and counter
proliferation policy)) is there stating that the policy makers do not know
how the people they are responsible for are using such devices. I would
like to note that this appears to be an extremely significant and telling
response.

Can you clarify whether you know which practitioners they were referring
to and whether they were contacted and responded? If so could you please
specify which response came from them?

K. On Page 25 DSTL responded “To date I have received nil returns from the
departments”

This indicates that some departments had not responded. Can you please
clarify which departments of DSTL had responded to that sender?

L. Below I have listed the departments you disclosed which emails were
sent to and the ones which responded.

Outgoing e-mails:

SecEC-Land3 (Smart Approvals Guidance-Smart Approvals)
Cap CI-BM4
SecEC-AirtTL
SecEC-Land&OpsTL
SecEC-Land1
SecEC-Land2
SecEC-Land3
SecEC-Ops1
SecEC-ISTL
SEC EC IS2
SecEC-Hd
SecEC-MarTL
LF-Eqpt-COS
LF-Sec-MS&E1-SO1
LF Eqpt-Progres-DCC-SO2
LF-Sec-&Group
PJHQ-J8-FOI-Group
DEC SEC-PolSec LE-JSC-WPNS (multiuser)
DES SEC-PolSecShips and Subs
DES Sec-FOI
ACP-CH-IHL
DGFin
DGStrat BusmanPol-1
DST-Strategy SEC 1
Sec Pol Ops-FOI
CLS-Sec 1
DCDC-Coord SO2
DSTL

Incoming e-mails:

SecEC-Land3 (Smart Approvals Guidance-Smart Approvals)
Cap CI-BM4 (& on behalf of Sec EC IS)
SecEC ISTL
SecEC-AirtTL
PJHQ-J8-FOI-Group
SEC EC IS2
(LF-Sec-MS&E1-SO1) LF-EQPT-ProgRes-DCC-SO2
ACP-CH-IHL
DCDC-Coord SO2
DSTL

Although some respondents indicate that they are vouching for others under
them, the number of people who responded still seems vastly less than
those who were sent e-mails. Can you clear up which depts failed to
respond?

M. Last but certainly not least, there are certain key groups which I
believe are especially relevant to the request. I would like to know
whether they were contacted and which responses would pertain to them if
they were. If they did not respond I would like clarification as to why.
These are:

1. Targeting and Information Operations (TIO) (Old War Office
Building, Whitehall, London)
2. Actual Information Operations in the UK
3. Electronic Warfare Operational Support (EWOS), RAF Waddington
(or any of it's 11 other centres throughout the UK)
4. the Cyber and Influence section of DSTL

I am treating your correspondence as a request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Under section 14(1) of the Freedom of information Act, public authorities
do not have to comply with requests if they are deemed vexatious. Section
14 is not an exemption, but is rather concerned with the nature of the
request and has the effect of removing the citizen’s right under section
1(1) of the Act. As such, it clears the public authority of the need to
confirm or deny whether the information is held. I have to advise you that
the Department regards your request dated 3 February 2013 as a vexatious
request under section 14(1) of the Act. This means the Department has no
obligation to comply with this request or with any future requests on the
same subject. This subject is considered by the Department to be that of
information operations. Your request on directed energy devices is part of
a greater body of questions on information operations, as your email of 5
October 2012 makes clear. Should you choose to submit further requests or
correspondence on information operations or subsidiary topics (such as
directed energy devices) you should be aware they will go unanswered.
However, all those requests which were received over twenty working days
prior to this notice will still be answered by the Department.

In reaching this decision I have taken into account the large number of
requests you have submitted to the Department and the burden this caused
in responding to them. In particular I note your continued requesting for
information regarding the research done into initial responses provided.
Mechanisms included in the Act, for internal review and appeal to the ICO,
are designed to ensure that initial responses are commensurate with legal
requirements and hence your requesting for such information can be argued
to have no serious purpose.

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Deputy Chief Information Officer, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
http://www.ico.gov.uk.

Yours sincerely,

 

CIO Secretariat

 

CIO-Secretariat | Ministry of Defence | Level 2, Zone M | Main Building |
Whitehall | London | SW1A 2HB

Telephone (Switchboard): 020 721 89000

 

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear CIO Secretariat,

Thank you for your response dated 6 March 2013. In it you stated that my communication which you declared a new request was deemed vexatious.

You underlined that you had taken into account the large number of requests submitted and the burden caused in responding, and specified the information sought regarding research done in particular.

I would like to contest this decision.

The recent communications were:

3rd February 2013-
Clarification sought

18th February 2013-
Clarification replaced by request for Internal Review

20th February-
MOD responds without mentioning Internal Review request. MOD provides some clarification and then says it is treating part of the communication as a new request.

21st February-
I responded seeking to fully understand MOD communication sent the previous day.

6th March 2013-
MOD responds detailing decision that my communication was vexatious in the context of other requests.

With regard to directed energy weapons my request for clarification was in detail. I have felt this appropriate because of the seriousness of the matter. I am quite cognizant, as I believe the MOD are, that they are under no obligation to provide full responses, or indeed any detail where clarification is sought.

I looked for detail knowing that some or all of it may not be provided and specifically used the word 'clarification' so it would be treated appropriately. Some of the communications have been protracted because I have been trying to provide reminders as to requests which have not had a response. This is to seek resolution, and can save work from all parties when addressed in a timely way.

The communication on 3rd February did not seek to open a new request. So it seems surprising that the MOD would try to create more work for themselves by interpreting some of the clarification as a new request when they state feeling burdened. Surely it would have made more sense to simply explain they were burdened and deny the clarification than us have to go through this.

I believe this might potentially have been because there are a number of Internal Review requests which have all arrived with them at the same time. This was not my intention and it stems from a number of requests which were spread out across the second half of last year. When making requests I am conscious that I do not want to cause unreasonable burden, so it was entirely intentional that there was spaces reaching months between some of the requests.

It had originally been indicated that MOD planned to amalgamate a few of these together and respond, but no response followed.

As a result many of these had to go to decision notice to get a first response. For reasons unknown to me, many of the Decision Notices were delayed by the ICO and ended up arriving together at MOD within a number of weeks.

Accordingly the first responses arrived with me in a short space of time. I had a window to try and provide the reasons why the information should be released and had to get back to MOD. Because a lot of the first responses all cited the same reasons for exemption, much of my responses contained similar content and dissatisfaction, and this was also a factor in the Internal Review requests arriving at the same time.

I have attempted informal resolution where possible. MOD documentation encourages individuals to do so prior to formal requests. I am grateful where clarification has been forthcoming. I would add that I am not pursuing this because I am dissatisfied with the lack of information, rather because they have categorized my attempt at informal resolution as a new request and deemed it vexatious. I see this as an inappropriate attempt to tie my hands.

Where I have made meta requests for communication leading to decisions, this was following advice taken which indicated it wouldn't be harmful since that information would likely be requested by the ICO at a later stage if they were handling the original complaint anyway.

I have only made 2 first requests to MOD in 2013. I believe that what has happened here is not the appropriate course. As such I would like to move this to review, unless you believe you can resolve this informally.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Acknowledgement of Request for a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Internal Review

I acknowledge your email received here on 8 March 2013 in which you requested an internal review of your request for information under the FOIA, our reference 04-02-2013-125955-004.

The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days and we therefore aim to complete the review and respond to you by 9 April 2013. While we are working hard to achieve this, in the interests of providing you with a realistic indication of when you should expect a response, I should advise that the majority are currently taking between 20 and 40 working days to complete.

The review will involve a full, independent reconsideration of the handling of the case as well as the final decision.

Regards,
Ms Usha Sondhi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Usha Sondhi | CIO-SPP-IR Comp2 | 01.N.16 MOD Main Building | Whitehall | London SW1A 2HB

show quoted sections

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    20130409 Rev Mr Mackenzie Vexatious requests under section 14 1 Rev final response U.pdf

    542K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr MacKenzie

Please find attached MOD's internal review to your request, our reference 04-02-2013-125955-004.

Regards,
Ms Usha Sondhi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Usha Sondhi | CIO-SPP-IR Comp2 | 01.N.16 MOD Main Building | Whitehall | London SW1A 2HB

show quoted sections

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

5 Attachments

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Please find attached MOD’s response to your 15 October request (our ref
22-04-2013-121953-002), and an update on your request 4^th August request
(06-08-2012-125045-002).

 

Regards

 

CIO-FOI-IR (Multiuser)

DES Sec-PolSecLandEqt (Hawkins, Jonathan Mr), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Please see attached response to your FOI request.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

J P HAWKINS

DE&S Pol Sec Land Eqpt/ISTAR

Email: [1][email address]

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your recent responses. I will address each in turn here.

Response to Request for Communications Information received 30th April 2013.
(request made on 15th October 2012).
Your ref: 22-04-2013-121953-002

In the response Mr Tranham outlines that the information is being refused on the grounds that:

-It causes burden to the department
-He believes that this information should be the preserve of the ICO
-To provide it to me causes confusion and hindrance to the ICO
-The information would not be of value to me in terms of the MOD's previous position.

As I indicated previously, the request was made following advice that it would not be harmful to do so since the information would be likely to be sought by the ICO at the stage of complaint into the original response anyway.

This advice was provided to me by the ICO itself in conversation. Having reconsidered both points of view I believe that the position of the MOD is lacking in logic and that to ignore communication and then say at a later date that it is not relevant because it is being communicated privately to someone else is dubious.

I do not believe that the provision of the information would hinder the ICO activity. I would point out that there has been numerous timely reminders by myself to the MOD of non-response. If there had been a timely response from them then this would have saved the ICO from having to expend time repeatedly contacting them to deal with the matter.

If the communication data sought had been provided in proper course then this would have followed the thinking of the ICO member of staff and would have made the related complaints process faster and more fluid.

As things stand at present Mr Tranham has indicated that the information sought is now being provided to the ICO, so I would point out that the time necessary to copy that data here is surely limited.

In addition, the MOD decision to fulfil a later request for communications information, while not communicating to this one (or reminders) and then later refusing it causes me some wonder.

I believe it is also worthy of mentioning that these recent communications show a retrograde step in terms of deviation from the focus of the original request to matters which are of less relevance. The stance appears to have shifted toward the previous one on crowd control deployment of devices instead of looking at the ongoing use of Directed Energy Weapons/Devices in the context of Targeting and Information Operations usage.

As with previous communication, I would express concern at time allocation which might be misplaced or may otherwise indicate potential duplication of duties (new searches/reinterpretations of text etc.) which point away from key parties. I am also concerned by increasing deviations into personal opinion which lack substance and are seemingly at the expense of pertinent objective content.

Thanks again for the response. I would like this to be taken as a request for internal review.

Response to Request for Directed Energy Weapons Inventory received 1st May 2013.
(Request made 4th Dec 2012)
Your ref: 27-02-2013-154000-014

In this response Mr Jenkins provided a partial refusal citing Section 26(3) of the legislation.

I have previously stated that I believe the use of radiation on people in such operations as Targeting and Information Operations in peacetime is a breach of Common Law, The Geneva Convention, the European Convention and the Human Rights Act.

Previously I have indicated pertinent areas in terms of the technology used. These have included the relevant departments of MOD such as Targeting and Information Operations, Electronic Warfare Operational Support at RAF Waddington, and the DSTL Cyber and Influence Department.

I believe that the information refused is likely to be directly relevant to these.

Although unlikely, I would say it is also possible that the devices which have been mentioned in your response may possess additional capabilities; though there is a disappointing lack of specificity which limits any conclusion.

In a similar request I pointed out that foreign powers are unlikely to benefit from such knowledge as this, since they have the capability to detect such devices as well as resources to protect themselves through Electronic Warfare counter measures. I believe this is the case here and that it is the British public this is being used on who deserve to know what is happening and the scale of such transgressions.

As such I would like to request an internal review into this response.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Please find attached MOD's internal review response.

Regards,
MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

CIO-FOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

2 Attachments

Good afternoon Mr Mackenzie,

 

Please see attached response letter and first document in response to your
request.  The second document will be sent in a separate email.

 

Regards

 

CIO-FOI (Multiuser)

CIO-FOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

Good afternoon Mr Mackenzie,

 

Please see attached second document in response to your FOI request. 

 

Regards

 

CIO-FOI (Multiuser)

CIO-FOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

ICO Ref: FS50477818
Mr Mackenzie,
 
Please see attached response to your request for information on the use of
directed energy devices in the UK.
 
Regards
 
MOD CIO-FOI Operations Team
 
 

Alvin Pritchard. left an annotation ()

Mr.Donnie Mackenzie.

This is quite a interesting FOI request you have made.

It is blatantly obvious that the establishment have dragged their heels over this matter and have chosen to be as tight lipped as possible.

For the benefit of the lay person who has a interest in this subject, i would suggest you simply open your "bomb doors" and drop everything you have in plain English by way of factual knowledge on this subject matter, the establishment may not like it, however, this would be outweighed by admiration from the public if you can prove that directed energy device weapons are indeed being covertly used on people.

I admire your persistence in this subject matter.

Donnie Mackenzie left an annotation ()

With regard to the request for clarification they claimed was vexatious, the ICO has ruled in my favour against that. MOD have been told to issue a response to my first comms info request. (FS50474438)

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

14 Attachments

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Here’s the Ministry of Defence response to your request for digital copies
of e-mails on directed energy devices.

 

Defence Resources Secretariat

 

Dear DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Thank you for your response dated 8th November 2013.

You will recall that the relevant request was made with reference to the "Information Not Held" position taken laterally by the MOD on 12th October 2012. I sent it to you on the 15th of October 2012 and it said:

"I would like to politely ask that you provide digital copies of the communications you made and recieved in order to establish the position you came to."

Having now seen the pages provided, I am disappointed to see that most of it seems either redacted or entirely removed because it was considered "Out Of Scope".

It seems however that no specific reference to FOIA exemptions has been made.

Can you clarify whether or not the MOD is depending on any such exemption?

I also note that unfortunately a proportion of the information provided is of almost unreadable poor image quality.

Thank you again for the response.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

Dear DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Apologies. The last response should have stated that no exemptions were cited to cover the information redacted which was not considered personal information.

It is obviously not the personal information I am looking for clarification on; rather that which is labelled "Out of Scope".

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

Thank you for your e-mail. We'll get back to you as soon as we can.

Defence Resources Secretariat

show quoted sections

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

No exemption is needed when a Public Authority redacts information that is
out of scope of a request because this term is used to identify
information not related to the information request. In your case, the
request was for ‘digital copies of the communications you made and
received in order to establish the position you came to’, (in reference to
your previous FOI request 06-08-2012-125045-002). The text redacted as out
of scope does not contain any information used to establish the MOD’s
position.

 

As stated in our answer dated 7 November 2013, you have received all of
the information in scope of your request, however a small amount of this
information was redacted under Sections 40(1) and 40(2) (Personal
Information). These exemptions were the only ones applied to your FOI
request (15-10-2013-142720-009).

 

Unfortunately the redaction process can affect the final quality of the
information released. Please let me know which attachments you cannot read
and I will scan them at a higher resolution to see if that improves the
quality, but please note that this will greatly increase their file size.

 

 

Regards,

 

Defence Resources-Secretariat

Ministry of Defence,

Main Building,

Whitehall,

London.

SW1A 2HB

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Deputy Chief Information Officer, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

show quoted sections

Dear DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER),

Thanks for your response today.

The poor quality files are:

(A) E mail 16 August 2012 1202 001
(J) E mail 12 September 2012 1142 001
(L) E mail 9 October 2012 1333

You stated :

“No exemption is needed when a Public Authority redacts information that is out of scope of a request because this term is used to identify information not related to the information request. In your case, the
request was for ‘digital copies of the communications you made and received in order to establish the position you came to’, (in reference to your previous FOI request 06-08-2012-125045-002). The text redacted as out of scope does not contain any information used to establish the MOD’s position”

The operative words in my request are “made and received”. The operative word in your response is “used”. So there is a subtle but significant difference there. My request encompasses all emails sent and received in order to establish the position. Your response is worded to only include those emails which were used.

Therefore, I would like to request an internal review in order that the information labelled “out of scope” be released.

Yours sincerely,

Donnie Mackenzie

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Link: [1]File-List

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

I am writing to you to confirm receipt of your e-mail below and to inform
you that the three files you have listed will be forwarded to you as
requested.

 

Regards,

 

Defence Resources-Secretariat,

Ministry of Defence,

Main Building,

Whitehall,

London.

SW1A 2HB.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Deputy Chief Information Officer, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[2]http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

 

show quoted sections

DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

3 Attachments

Link: [1]File-List
Link: [2]Edit-Time-Data

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

I am writing to you to confirm that an internal review will be conducted
on the out of scope information as requested in your e-mail below.

 

I also attach the three attachments that have been re-scanned at a higher
quality as agreed.

 

Regards,

 

Defence Resources-Secretariat,

Ministry of Defence,

Main Building,

Whitehall,

London.

SW1A 2HB.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Deputy Chief Information Officer, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[3]http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER)
Sent: 28 November 2013 10:07
To: 'Donnie Mackenzie'
Cc: DGFinance-SecParliamentaryFOI (MULTIUSER)
Subject: Release-authorised: 20131128-Internal review of Freedom of
Information request - use of directed energy devices in the UK - Donnie
Mackenzie-U

 

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

I am writing to you to confirm receipt of your e-mail below and to inform
you that the three files you have listed will be forwarded to you as
requested.

 

Regards,

 

Defence Resources-Secretariat,

Ministry of Defence,

Main Building,

Whitehall,

London.

SW1A 2HB.

 

If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about
any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in
the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are
still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review
by contacting the Deputy Chief Information Officer, 2nd Floor, MOD Main
Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail [email address]). Please note that
any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of
the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an
end.

 

If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your
complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information
Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review
process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the
Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website,
[4]http://www.ico.gov.uk.

 

 

show quoted sections

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Receipt is acknowledged of your request for an internal review dated 27
November 2013 (MOD reference 15-10-2013-142720-009).

 

The Department's target for completing internal reviews is 20 working days
and we therefore aim to complete the review and respond to you by 27
December 2013. While we are working hard to achieve this, in the interests
of providing you with a realistic indication of when you should expect a
response, I should advise that the majority are currently taking between
20 and 40 working days to complete.

 

The review will involve a full, independent reconsideration of the
handling of the case as well as the final decision.

 

Yours sincerely,

MOD Information Rights Compliance Team

 

 

CIO-FOI-IR (MULTIUSER), Ministry of Defence

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    20140228 Review Mr D MacKenzie Use of Directed Energy Devices 15 10 2013 142720 009 Rev final response U.pdf

    351K Download View as HTML

Dear Mr Mackenzie,

 

Please find attached MOD’s internal review response to your request, our
reference: 15-10-2013-142720-009, with apologies for the delay.

 

Regards,

Ms Usha Sondhi
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms Usha Sondhi | MOD Information Rights Compliance Team | CIO-SPP-IR
Comp2 | 01.N.10 MOD Main Building | Whitehall | London SW1A 2HB

 

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org