We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Rob McMullen please sign in and let everyone know.

When did the Met discover that officers were trying to persuade the most vulnerable rape victims to drop their allegations?

Rob McMullen made this Freedom of Information request to Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

We're waiting for Rob McMullen to read a recent response and update the status.

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

The media reports today (11/02/14) that another force has considered the threat of the gross misconduct charge against the Met officer, PC James Patrick, to have been unwarranted (anyone found guilty of a gross misconduct charge is sacked). A lesser misconduct charge will nevertheless still be pursued.
(http://www.kaimtodner.com/news/2014/02/1...)

1) On what date was the MPS first made aware that some of their officers were targeting vulnerable rape victims in order to persuade them to drop allegations?

"..where a victim is vulnerable or has any of the vulnerable characteristics, including the use of drugs or alcohol, or mental health, or even their age — these are protected characteristics of vulnerable victims — those are the people who would be targeted to try to make them back out of the allegation"
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc... - See Q11)

2) What actions were taken by the Met, following that date, to minimise any further victimisation of those considered to possess vulnerable characteristics in rape cases?

No personal or private information is requested, only the types of action which were considered necessary (exclude inquiries), a list of actions taken (exclude inquiries), their date of implementation and how the success of each was monitored.

3) What instructions were given by the Met to their officers, following that date, to prevent the victimisation of rape victims considered to possess vulnerable characteristics?

No personal information is requested, only a copy (some content may be redacted if necessary) of any instruction distributed to officers, their dates of issue and numbers of recipients.

4) Who within the MPS communicated with police in Essex to arrange a visit by two of their officers to the private house of PC James Patrick late on a Friday night (22nd Nov '13), three days after having given evidence under Parliamentary privilege to a specially convened session of the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee?
(https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/40395...)

5) Was the word "welfare" ever used during any discussion within the Met prior to the visit or with the Essex police while arranging it?

6) During any discussion within the Met prior to the visit or with Essex police while it was being arranged, was any mention made of the officer's wife or two young children or any consideration expressed about them or to the possible effect on them of such a sudden late visit in the dark, given the circumstances that week and the already year-long period of stress imposed by an unwarranted threat of a job loss - especially as no expression of concern for their welfare had been proffered throughout that whole preceding year?

"..we were actually asked by this Committee, when we approached him about his welfare, whether we were trying to interfere with his evidence to this Committee"
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc... - See Q286)

7) Who in the Met authorised this visit?

8) Who in the Met authorised a visit a week later, again late on a Friday night?
(https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/40651...)

9) Could the time and cost involved for all arrangements made between the Met and the Essex police in relation to the visits be provided.

Thank you
Yours faithfully,
Rob McMullen

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. McMullen

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014020001128
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 11/02/2014.  I note you seek
access to the following information:

"The media reports today (11/02/14) that another force has considered the
threat of the gross misconduct charge against the Met officer, PC James
Patrick, to have been unwarranted (anyone found guilty of a gross
misconduct charge is sacked). A lesser misconduct charge will nevertheless
still be pursued.
(http://www.kaimtodner.com/news/2014/02/1...)

1) On what date was the MPS first made aware that some of their officers
were targeting vulnerable rape victims in order to persuade them to drop
allegations?

"..where a victim is vulnerable or has any of the vulnerable
characteristics, including the use of drugs or alcohol, or mental health,
or even their age — these are protected characteristics of vulnerable
victims — those are the people who would be targeted to try to make them
back out of the allegation"
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...
- See Q11)

2) What actions were taken by the Met, following that date, to minimise
any further victimisation of those considered to possess vulnerable
characteristics in rape cases?

No personal or private information is requested, only the types of action
which were considered necessary (exclude inquiries), a list of actions
taken (exclude inquiries), their date of implementation and how the
success of each was monitored.

3) What instructions were given by the Met to their officers, following
that date, to prevent the victimisation of rape victims considered to
possess vulnerable characteristics?

No personal information is requested, only a copy (some content may be
redacted if necessary) of any instruction distributed to officers, their
dates of issue and numbers of recipients.

4) Who within the MPS communicated with police in Essex to arrange a visit
by two of their officers to the private house of PC James Patrick late on
a Friday night (22nd Nov '13), three days after having given evidence
under Parliamentary privilege to a specially convened session of the House
of Commons Public Administration Select Committee?
(https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/40395...)

5) Was the word "welfare" ever used during any discussion within the Met
prior to the visit or with the Essex police while arranging it?

6) During any discussion within the Met prior to the visit or with Essex
police while it was being arranged, was any mention made of the officer's
wife or two young children or any consideration expressed about them or to
the possible effect on them of such a sudden late visit in the dark, given
the circumstances that week and the already year-long period of stress
imposed by an unwarranted threat of a job loss - especially as no
expression of concern for their welfare had been proffered throughout that
whole preceding year?

"..we were actually asked by this Committee, when we approached him about
his welfare, whether we were trying to interfere with his evidence to this
Committee"
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...
- See Q286)

7) Who in the Met authorised this visit?

8) Who in the Met authorised a visit a week later, again late on a Friday
night?
(https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/40651...)

9) Could the time and cost involved for all arrangements made between the
Met and the Essex police in relation to the visits be provided."

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
contact us quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

R. Loizou
Administration Team 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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

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).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

An addendum, in relation to nos. 4 - 9 above, giving another public reference, in this case from the press:

"This letter is the latest example of the bully boy tactics they have employed" said Ms Todner. "They've also sent police officers round to his family home late on a Friday evening on the pretence that they were concerned about his welfare."

Karen Todner, PC Patrick's solicitor
in The Times, article title:
"Met silences the PC who exposed 'fiddled' figures"
by Sean O'Neill on Sat 14th Dec 2013
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/ar...)

Yours faithfully,
Rob McMullen

Rob McMullen left an annotation ()

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

An addendum, in relation to nos. 1 - 3 above, plus consequent additional information requests:

The "crime prevention minister Norman Baker..[has] written to the 43 constabularies asking them to ensure that officers do not wait 72 hours to register rapes."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cri...

[10] If a home office minister can suddenly write to all 43 police forces demanding this change, potentially reducing at the stroke of his pen the suffering of future rape victims, on what date did those at the helm of the MPS take the initiative and issue an equivalent internal unilateral edict after the Public Administration Select Committee session at 9:30am on Tues 19th Nov last year heard oral evidence reminding the MPS of the frequent plight of such victims at the hands of some officers?

[11] Following the demand by crime prevention minister Norman Baker for all 43 constabularies to ensure that officers no longer wait up to 72 hours but instead record each reported rape immediately as a crime, what steps have the MPS planned in order to enforce its implementation and to stop any officer persuading victims to withdraw allegations, what deadline has been set for its implementation and what precautions have been put in place to monitor and verify the success of its implementation?

[12] In "The Government Response to the Stern Review" of March 2011 (3 years ago)..
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...
..the Ministerial Foreword by Rt Hon Theresa May MP & Lynne Featherstone MP stated that the Government had
"announced..funding over the next three years for centres which provide specialist care to ensure that those traumatised by rape..receive the specialist support they need"
and, on page 17,
"The Government agrees entirely and has made clear its commitment to supporting specialist services for victims of sexual violence to ensure all their needs are met properly"
..so, as the three years of promised Government funding have now elapsed, apart from eliminating the 72 hour delay in reporting rapes as crimes, can the MPS now guarantee that all rape victims in London - or at least 100% of those with any protected characteristics ("the people who would be targeted to try to make them back out of the allegation") - will receive the currently prescribed post-rape victim care response (including any required post-exposure prophylaxis, 28-day course of HIV antiretrovirals, post traumatic stress treatment etc) and no further pressure/trauma from investigators?

PS: These contrasting (rape/whistleblower) information requests are obviously intended to help clarify in what ways the MPS actually prioritises the "welfare" of those who might be viewed as vulnerable while under its jurisdiction or in its care.

Thank you
Yours faithfully,
Rob McMullen

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

By law, the Metropolitan Police Service should normally have responded promptly to this FOI request and by 11 March 2014. Please indicate the current anticipated date of your response.

Yours faithfully,
Rob McMullen

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. McMullen,
 
Thank you for your e-mail and apologies for the late reply.
 
I forwarded your chaser e-mail to the case worker for his attention.
 
With kind regards,
 
R. Loizou
 
 

show quoted sections

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr McMullen,
 
Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to you. I am
progressing your request and should be in a position to respond to you
next week. I will write to you with an estimated time of completion
shortly.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Damion
 
 
 

show quoted sections

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is long overdue responding, having not replied substantively to my FOI request "When did the Met discover that officers were trying to persuade the most vulnerable rape victims to drop their allegations?", as is required by law.

Please reply without further delay to this FOI request and identify why the response to this request has been so slow.

Yours faithfully,
Rob McMullen

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr. McMullen

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014040002297

I write in connection with your correspondence dated 10th April 2014
concerning the delay to your Freedom of Information request to the
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) under reference 2014020001128.  

Please find below a full response to your procedural complaint below.

Request for information - 11th February 2014

The media reports today (11/02/14) that another force has considered the
threat of the gross misconduct charge against the Met officer, PC James
Patrick, to have been unwarranted (anyone found guilty of a gross
misconduct charge is sacked). A lesser misconduct charge will nevertheless
still be pursued.
(http://www.kaimtodner.com/news/2014/02/1...)

1) On what date was the MPS first made aware that some of their officers
were targeting vulnerable rape victims in order to persuade them to drop
allegations?

"..where a victim is vulnerable or has any of the vulnerable
characteristics, including the use of drugs or alcohol, or mental health,
or even their age — these are protected characteristics of vulnerable
victims — those are the people who would be targeted to try to make them
back out of the allegation"
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...
- See Q11)

2) What actions were taken by the Met, following that date, to minimise
any further victimisation of those considered to possess vulnerable
characteristics in rape cases?

No personal or private information is requested, only the types of action
which were considered necessary (exclude inquiries), a list of actions
taken (exclude inquiries), their date of implementation and how the
success of each was monitored.

3) What instructions were given by the Met to their officers, following
that date, to prevent the victimisation of rape victims considered to
possess vulnerable characteristics?

No personal information is requested, only a copy (some content may be
redacted if necessary) of any instruction distributed to officers, their
dates of issue and numbers of recipients.

4) Who within the MPS communicated with police in Essex to arrange a visit
by two of their officers to the private house of PC James Patrick late on
a Friday night (22nd Nov '13), three days after having given evidence
under Parliamentary privilege to a specially convened session of the House
of Commons Public Administration Select Committee?
(https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/40395...)

5) Was the word "welfare" ever used during any discussion within the Met
prior to the visit or with the Essex police while arranging it?

6) During any discussion within the Met prior to the visit or with Essex
police while it was being arranged, was any mention made of the officer's
wife or two young children or any consideration expressed about them or to
the possible effect on them of such a sudden late visit in the dark, given
the circumstances that week and the already year-long period of stress
imposed by an unwarranted threat of a job loss - especially as no
expression of concern for their welfare had been proffered throughout that
whole preceding year?

"..we were actually asked by this Committee, when we approached him about
his welfare, whether we were trying to interfere with his evidence to this
Committee"
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...
- See Q286)

7) Who in the Met authorised this visit?

8) Who in the Met authorised a visit a week later, again late on a Friday
night?
(https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/40651...)

9) Could the time and cost involved for all arrangements made between the
Met and the Essex police in relation to the visits be provided.

Your further correspondence -18th February 2014

An addendum, in relation to nos. 4 - 9 above, giving another public
reference, in this case from the press:

"This letter is the latest example of the bully boy tactics they have
employed" said Ms Todner. "They've also sent police officers round to his
family home late on a Friday evening on the pretence that they were
concerned about his welfare."

Karen Todner, PC Patrick's solicitor
in The Times, article title:
"Met silences the PC who exposed 'fiddled' figures"
by Sean O'Neill on Sat 14th Dec 2013
(http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/ar...)

Procedural Complaint

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is long overdue responding, having
not replied substantively to my FOI request "When did the Met discover
that officers were trying to persuade the most vulnerable rape victims to
drop their allegations?", as is required by law.

Please reply without further delay to this FOI request and identify why
the response to this request has been so slow.

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) acknowledges the delay to you
receiving a response to your request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FoIA).

Reason for decision

The review takes note of your comment in your correspondence ‘The
Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) is long overdue responding, having not
replied substantively to my FOI request .’ In this regard I can advise
you that the statutory time limit for responding to a request under the
FoIA is set out in Section 10(1) which states that a public authority must
comply with section 1 (1) promptly and in any event not later than the
twentieth working day following the date of receipt.  Therefore, a public
authority must inform the applicant in writing whether it holds the
information requested and if so, communicate that information to the
applicant, promptly, but not later than 20 working days after receipt of
the request.

Your request for information was received by the MPS on the 11th February
2014 and therefore a response should have been sent by the 11th March
2014.  

The review takes note of the letter sent by the Information Manager on the
27th March 2014 apologising for the delay.  Despite this letter I can
confirm that, in this instance a failure to respond to your request within
the time limit is a breach of section 10(1) of the FoIA.

The review has regard for your comment ‘Please reply without further delay
to this FOI request and identify why the response to this request has been
so slow.’ And in this respect I have contacted the relevant department
dealing with your request and can confirm it is still currently in
progress. I am unable at this time to provide you with a date for
completion. As a response to your request is currently outstanding, I am
unable to complete a full internal review in relation to your request.
 However, should you be dissatisfied with the MPS response to your request
you would still be entitled to request an internal review in relation to
the decision.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay you have
experienced and for any inconvenience caused by our failure to process
your request correctly.  The MPS takes compliance with the FoIA very
seriously and is working hard to promote good practice in regard to the
processing of requests.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
FoIA Quality and Assurance Advisor

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

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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  

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).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk

Twitter: @metpoliceuk

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 'When did the Met discover that officers were trying to persuade the most vulnerable rape victims to drop their allegations?'.

So far:

"Your request for information was received by the MPS on the 11th February 2014 and therefore a response should have been sent by the 11th March 2014."

It wasn't.

27 March 2014: "Please accept my apology for the delay in responding to you. I am progressing your request and should be in a position to respond to you next week."

My request wasn't progressed at all and no-one responded the next week.

"The review takes note of the letter sent by the Information Manager on the 27th March 2014 apologising for the delay. Despite this letter I can confirm that, in this instance a failure to respond to your request within the time limit is a breach of section 10(1) of the FoIA."

Who cares though? It's clear such breaches are of no consequence whatever.

26 April 2014:
"The review has regard for your comment ‘Please reply without further delay to this FOI request and identify why the response to this request has been so slow.’ And in this respect I have contacted the relevant department dealing with your request and can confirm it is still currently in progress. I am unable at this time to provide you with a date for completion.."

Perhaps the relevant department is far too busy planning how to wreak further vengeance on PC Patrick and his family, instead of responding to his concerns constructively, let alone deigning to consider FOIs worth answering? Prove me wrong.

"..As a response to your request is currently outstanding, I am unable to complete a full internal review in relation to your request.."

You are not "unable to complete a full internal review", you are "unable to start any internal review".

"..However, should you be dissatisfied with the MPS response to your request you would still be entitled to request an internal review in relation to the decision"

A review into what decision? A decision not to respond to a review? Of what use then is an internal review? Is this a review into a review? Or a review into why no review can occur?

"The MPS takes compliance with the FoIA very seriously and is working hard to promote good practice in regard to the processing of requests."

That is untrue.

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

Thank you
Yours faithfully,
Rob McMullen

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr McMullen,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014020001128

I write in response to your request for information that was received by
the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 11 February 2014. I apologise for
the delay in responding to your request and any inconvenience caused. I
note that you seek access to the following information:

"The media reports today (11/02/14) that another force has considered the
threat of the gross misconduct charge against the Met officer, PC James
Patrick, to have been unwarranted (anyone found guilty of a gross
misconduct charge is sacked). A lesser misconduct charge will nevertheless
still be pursued.

(http://www.kaimtodner.com/news/2014/02/1...)

1) On what date was the MPS first made aware that some of their officers
were targeting vulnerable rape victims in order to persuade them to drop
allegations?

"..where a victim is vulnerable or has any of the vulnerable
characteristics, including the use of drugs or alcohol, or mental health,
or even their age — these are protected characteristics of vulnerable
victims — those are the people who would be targeted to try to make them
back out of the allegation"
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...
- See Q11)

2) What actions were taken by the Met, following that date, to minimise
any further victimisation of those considered to possess vulnerable
characteristics in rape cases?

No personal or private information is requested, only the types of action
which were considered necessary (exclude inquiries), a list of actions
taken (exclude inquiries), their date of implementation and how the
success of each was monitored.

3) What instructions were given by the Met to their officers, following
that date, to prevent the victimisation of rape victims considered to
possess vulnerable characteristics?

No personal information is requested, only a copy (some content may be
redacted if necessary) of any instruction distributed to officers, their
dates of issue and numbers of recipients.

4) Who within the MPS communicated with police in Essex to arrange a visit
by two of their officers to the private house of PC James Patrick late on
a Friday night (22nd Nov '13), three days after having given evidence
under Parliamentary privilege to a specially convened session of the House
of Commons Public Administration Select Committee?
(https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/40395...)

5) Was the word "welfare" ever used during any discussion within the Met
prior to the visit or with the Essex police while arranging it?

6) During any discussion within the Met prior to the visit or with Essex
police while it was being arranged, was any mention made of the officer's
wife or two young children or any consideration expressed about them or to
the possible effect on them of such a sudden late visit in the dark, given
the circumstances that week and the already year-long period of stress
imposed by an unwarranted threat of a job loss - especially as no
expression of concern for their welfare had been proffered throughout that
whole preceding year?

"..we were actually asked by this Committee, when we approached him about
his welfare, whether we were trying to interfere with his evidence to this
Committee"
(http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...
- See Q286)

7) Who in the Met authorised this visit?

8) Who in the Met authorised a visit a week later, again late on a Friday
night?
(https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/40651...)

9) Could the time and cost involved for all arrangements made between the
Met and the Essex police in relation to the visits be provided."

When a request for information is made under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (the Act), a public authority must inform you, when permitted,
whether the information requested is held. It must then communicate that
information to you. If a public authority decides that it cannot comply
with all or part of a request, it must cite the appropriate section or
exemption of the Act and provide you with an explanation. It is important
to note that 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. Any information released
under the Act is also published upon the MPS website.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT DECISION
The MPS has answered questions 1, 2 and 3 of your request. In response to
questions 4 - 9 of your request, the MPS can neither confirm nor deny that
it holds the information you have requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a)
of the Act (the duty to confirm or deny that information is held)  does
not apply, by virtue of Section 40(5) of the Act. In accordance with the
Act, this email represents a Refusal Notice for this request under Section
17(1) of the Act. A full explanation, including the relevant sections of
the Act, is given in the Legal Annex below.

INFORMATION DISCLOSED
"1) On what date was the MPS first made aware that some of their officers
were targeting vulnerable rape victims in order to persuade them to drop
allegations?

"..where a victim is vulnerable or has any of the vulnerable
characteristics, including the use of drugs or alcohol, or mental health,
or even their age — these are protected characteristics of vulnerable
victims — those are the people who would be targeted to try to make them
back out of the allegation"

 (http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidenc...
 - See Q11)"

The MPS have not been made aware, by PC Patrick or any other person, of
specific cases where officers were targeting vulnerable victims to
persuade them to drop allegations. If any cases are identified where this
is a factor, the matter would be referred to the Directorate of
professional Standards for investigation. If you are aware of any specific
cases where this has been raised, I would be grateful if you could furnish
the MPS with the detail so that this can be reviewed.

"2) What actions were taken by the Met, following that date, to minimize
any further victimisation of those considered to possess vulnerable
characteristics in rape cases?"

See answer above.

"3) What instructions were given by the Met to their officers, following
that date, to prevent the victimisation of rape victims considered to
possess vulnerable characteristics?"

See answer above.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS
This notice concludes your request for information. I would like to thank
you for your interest in the MPS.

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper
entitled Complaint Rights, which explains how to make a complaint.  

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me at the address at the top of this email, quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Damion Baird
LEGAL ANNEX
Please find explanation below of the exemption relied upon under the Act.
Section 40 (5) - Personal Information
To confirm or deny whether the MPS holds information of the description
specified by the request, would publicly disclose information about the
subject of this request. For example, should the MPS confirm that any
information is held, this would disclose information about the subject of
this request. Conversely, should the MPS confirm that no information is
held, this would also disclose information about the subject of this
request. To provide an answer in confirmation or denial would be in breach
of the general right to privacy provided by the Data Protection Act 1998.
For this reason, this notice is a refusal under Section 17(1) of the Act
and does not confirm nor deny whether any information does or does not
exist.
SECTIONS OF THE ACT CLAIMED

Section 1(1)(a) of the Act provides:
"(1) Any person making a request for information to a public authority is
entitled -
(a) to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds
information of the description specified in the request"

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 [1998 c. 29.] 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 [1998 c. 29.] 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)."
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 to discuss the
response with the case officer who dealt with your request.  
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

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).

 

Find us at:

Facebook: Facebook.com/metpoliceuk
Twitter: @metpoliceuk

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Rob McMullen please sign in and let everyone know.