Re: Freedom of Information requests re Madeleine McCann - The cost of Operation Grange - Request REFUSED

by roy rovers 05.09.14 0:54

palm tree wrote:IMO, there will come a day when whoever is being protected will become unprotected.

Thanks.

by Doug D 04.10.14 14:44

Tony’s original request about Redwood’s helicopter trip dated 29^th May was refused by the Met on 11^th June under the following:

Section 27 International Relations
Under Section 27(1) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold
information where its release would, or would be likely to, have an
adverse effect upon International Relations.

Section 30 - Investigations
Under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold
information relating to investigations where its release would or would be
likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the
prosecution of offenders.

However, a Mr Mike Stapes made a request on 12^th June regarding the costs of the subsequent ‘dig & search holiday’, which has not been refused, although TPTB are still procrastinating, with three (so far) apologies for their delayed response. However their latest response date was for 3^rd October, a deadline which of course has again been missed.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/please_can_you_provide_the_follo#incoming-528891

Maybe some clever person can explain why this latter request has not just been swept aside immediately in the same manner under such ‘International Relations’ & ‘Investigations’ bollocks. At least that would have made their FOI response statistics look more timely.

by Doug D 07.10.14 21:22

Overdue (non-)response now issued by Met:

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)  7 October 2014

Dear Mr Staples

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014060001342

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 12/06/2014. I note you seek  access to the following information:

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Please can you provide the following information, regarding the recent police operation (2nd June-11th June, 2014) in Praia da Luz, Portugal, relating to Madeleine McCann?

 1) How many officers from UK police forces went to Praia da Luz – and how many of those were from the Metropolitan Police. 
2) Can you please provide a breakdown of the role of every officer who went to Portugal. (ie Dog Handlers, Family liaison officers, scientific support staff, etc )
 3) How much did the entire operation cost? (2nd June-11th June, 2014) 
4) What was the direct cost to the Metropolitan Police?
 5) Will that cost be met from the Metropolitan Police's budget, or from a separate government fund?
 6) Are the Metropolitan Police liable to pay any other UK police forces for their respective officer’s time / expenses? If so, please provide a breakdown of what sums are owed to which forces. 
7) Did Metropolitan Police / UK police forces / UK government funds cover any of the expenses incurred by the Portuguese authorities – for example, cost of excavators, any expenses for Portuguese search and rescue volunteers, any expenses for Portuguese police officers?

   I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the revised date, as a result we will not be  able to respond within 20 working days. 

 I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 31/10/2014.

   May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Frankly it beggars belief that the Met are unable to meet their statutory time deadlines on such a consistent basis, as Tony well knows with his constant need to chase responses to his own requests.

In this case, the original request was dated 12^th June 2014, yet other than the first 20 day time limit, every subsequent amended response date has been missed, even when they are only apologizing for being unable to respond yet and merely diarizing forwards.

I appreciate that it is only a day or two each time, but why on earth do they act in a way that can only invite criticism?

by Doug D 01.11.14 13:22

At last!

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/please_can_you_provide_the_follo#incoming-528891

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)  31 October 2014

Dear Mr Stapes

 Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014060001342

 I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 12/06/2014. I note you seek access to the following information:  Please can you provide the following information, regarding the recent police operation (2nd June-11th June, 2014) in Praia da Luz, Portugal, relating to Madeleine McCann?

  1) How many officers from UK police forces went to Praia da Luz - and how many of those were from the Metropolitan Police. 2) Can you please provide a breakdown of the role of every officer who went to Portugal. (ie Dog Handlers, Family liaison officers, scientific support staff, etc ) 3) How much did the entire operation cost? (2nd June-11th June, 2014) 4) What was the direct cost to the Metropolitan Police? 5) Will that cost be met from the Metropolitan Police's budget, or from a separate government fund? 6) Are the Metropolitan Police liable to pay any other UK police forces for their respective officer's time / expenses? If so, please provide a breakdown of what sums are owed to which forces. 7) Did Metropolitan Police / UK police forces / UK government funds cover any of the expenses incurred by the Portuguese authorities - for example, cost of excavators, any expenses for Portuguese search and rescue volunteers, any expenses for Portuguese police officers?

 Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.

  EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION  To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the MPS.

  Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000, (the Act), within which a request for information can be answered.  The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.  The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

  I have considered your request for information within the provisions set out by the Act and can confirm that some of the requested information is held by the MPS. DECISION Having identified and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release all the information requested. This response serves as a Partial Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act. REASONS FOR DECISION

 You have asked for information regarding the costs related to the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The investigation is being conducted by the MPS under the name 'Operation Grange'. The Home Office is funding the operation from a Special Grant budget. The MPS and the Home Office together review the value and the cost of the work at each stage.

  1) How many officers from UK police forces went to Praia da Luz – and how many of those were from the Metropolitan Police.

 There were 29 officers in total, 14 from the MPS and the remainder from other UK forces. 

 3) How much did the entire operation cost? (2nd June-11th June, 2014)

 The MPS' deployment to Portugal from the 01/06/2014 to the 08/06/2014 cost £46,000.

  4) What was the direct cost to the Metropolitan Police?

 There was no direct cost to the MPS because any costs are to be taken from the Home Office special grant.  

5) Will that cost be met from the Metropolitan Police's budget, or from a separate government fund?

 This cost will be met from the Home Office special grant.

  6) Are the Metropolitan Police liable to pay any other UK police forces for their respective officer’s time / expenses? If so, please provide a breakdown of what sums are owed to which forces. 

No, these expenses will be met by the Home Office special grant.

  7) Did Metropolitan Police / UK police forces / UK government funds cover any of the expenses incurred by the Portuguese authorities – for example, cost of excavators, any expenses for Portuguese search and rescue volunteers, any expenses for Portuguese police officers?

 No, these expenses were not met by us, they were met by the Portuguese authorities.

  Pursuant to the provisions of Section 27 and 30 of the Act I have decided to refuse access to the information requested for question 2 of your request.

 2) Can you please provide a breakdown of the role of every officer who went to Portugal. (ie Dog Handlers, Family liaison officers, scientific support staff, etc)

  Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act that are referred to in this response.

 Section 27(1)(b) - International Relations Section 30(1)(a) - Investigations  Under Section 27(1)(b) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would, or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon International Relations.  Section 27 International Relations  Evidence of Harm - International Relations  It would not be in the best interests of the public to possibly disrupt relations between the United Kingdom and Portugal due to information being released in response to this request. Any disruption of relations between this country and Portugal may have an adverse effect on the ongoing investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, some of which is being conducted in Portugal.

Section 30 Investigations  Under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information relating to investigations where its release would or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the prosecution of offenders.  This exemption can be applied following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. Details of the resources allocated to enquiries before their completion provides insight into the scale, nature and methodology applied to such operations. This has the effect of undermining that methodology.
Continues………..

………………………….

It has taken from 12^th June 2014 to come up with this response!

So they are happy to reveal the total cost (£46k), for 29 officers, that all costs will be covered by the special Home Office grant and that we didn’t pay for any of the Portuguese side of the operation.

Yet:

 2) Can you please provide a breakdown of the role of every officer who went to Portugal. (ie Dog Handlers, Family liaison officers, scientific support staff, etc)

can’t be answered on:

‘adverse effect upon International Relations’ and ‘investigations where its release would or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the prosecution of offenders.’

Please can someone suggest any plausible reason for this refusal.

‘International Relations’ for this question beggars belief.

‘Investigation’ – They don’t want to admit Mystic Meg went over to help or what. We know (I think) that Forensic teams were involved, looking for presumably ‘forensic evidence’ so what great secret relating to the team can be involved?

Was one of the T9 or somebody else from the PJ files out there ‘incognito’ pointing out locations or something?

And they wonder why we speculate.

by **PeterMac** 01.11.14 13:35

Doug D wrote: SNIPPED
 2) Can you please provide a breakdown of the role of every officer who went to Portugal. (ie Dog Handlers, Family liaison officers, scientific support staff, etc)
can’t be answered on:
‘adverse effect upon International Relations’ and ‘investigations where its release would or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the  prosecution of offenders.’
Please can someone suggest any plausible reason for this refusal.

Firstly, well done for your persistence.
I know what interpretation I would put on their refusal to answer

We had three people highly skilled in the retrieval of human remains, who are currently analysing what they found
There were two covert surveillance operatives who watched the Tapas 7 Member throughout the visit, and who have reported back . . .
There were two people from GCHQ who monitored all telephone traffic between and among the lists of suspects . . .during the visit

The last two of those entries are contrary to Portuguese law without authorisation, and therefore the issue of International relations DOES arise.
If this became known then the charges currently being prepared against several people might be compromised, . . .

Other interpretations possible, of course.

by Doug D 01.11.14 13:57

Thanks for that PeterMac, I wasn't thinking along the 'illegal actions' lines as far as International Relations.

You didn't suggest the 'covert operatives attempting the break-in at PJ-gate' to see what it is they've got in their files, on the basis that the PJ aren't stupid enough to let Redwood see their cards!

by roy rovers 01.11.14 19:20

Ugandan Relations?

Latest topics