FoI Act request 19 Sep 2014 - Met Police - Meetings with authors Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

Sent this morning:

++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Information about meetings with authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan

On 11 September 2014, Headline published a book, 'Looking for Madeleine', written by U.S. authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. There has been widespread concern that this book omits many relevant facts about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The authors have stated on the record in their book that they "met with Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood at the outset [who] urged us to be constantly careful that we do nothing during our research that might...impact negatively on the search for Madeleine".

1. On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan?

2.  Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those meetings?

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett

Best of luck with that one,cant see you getting a truthfull reply

Perhaps another pertinent question would be about any existing protocols re senior officers on an ongoing case meeting authors planning to write the 'definitive' book about the case.

Enid O'Dowd wrote:Perhaps another pertinent question would be about any existing protocols re senior officers on an ongoing case meeting authors planning to write the 'definitive' book about the case.

Well quite.
I know what my answer would have been.
Unprintable !

Did they really name DCI Redwood in the book as the Officer they met?

Yes the authors did. It's in a 'Note on Sources' at the end of the book:

'At Scotland Yard DCI Andy Redwood met with us at the outset, spoke frankly, but made it clear that he and his colleagues could not favour us - or any part of the media community - over any other parties. This was only correct.'

Enid O'Dowd wrote:Yes the authors did. It's in a 'Note on Sources' at the end of the book:

'At Scotland Yard DCI Andy Redwood met with us at the outset, spoke frankly, but made it clear that he and his colleagues could not favour us - or any part of the media community - over any other parties. This was only correct.'

Did they really need to meet to be told that?

Enid O'Dowd wrote:Yes the authors did. It's in a 'Note on Sources' at the end of the book:

'At Scotland Yard DCI Andy Redwood met with us at the outset, spoke frankly, but made it clear that he and his colleagues could not favour us - or any part of the media community - over any other parties. This was only correct.'

 
Thanks Enid.  

Redwood's fascinating remark translates as something was put on the table (by the writers) for him to speak in favour of or not to speak in favour of. Hence his remark "he and his colleagues could not favour us (meaning S&S) - or any part of the media community (meaning internet 'haters' community ?) - over any other parties (meaning who - the politicians? the investigators?)".   


The unspoken words left out by the authors actually speak volume.  


eta: sorry about the messy font size.  I've no idea how that happened.
 I see uniform font when typing, but the published transcript appears messy.

Apologies if this has already been posted or if I've put it in the wrong place, be surprised if it's not here already but I haven't seen it.

I came across this via twitter, the link is for a blog called A Sauce Said, and the page shows images of a 2 page Metropolitan Police FOI disclosure which states Summers and Swan were given NO INFORMATION despite meeting Detective Redwood. Operation Grange were unable to assist in their project in any way. Instead S&S were 'politely advised to access the publicly available PJ records'. (Did they bother?)

I would have tried posting the images of the pages but it never works for me, so here is the link to the page

http://asaucesaid.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/information-wants-to-be-free_26.html?spref=tw

Rose Quartz wrote:Apologies if this has already been posted or if I've put it in the wrong place, be surprised if it's not here already but I haven't seen it.

I came across this via twitter, the link is for a blog called A Sauce Said, and the page shows images of a 2 page Metropolitan Police FOI disclosure which states Summers and Swan were given NO INFORMATION despite meeting Detective Redwood. Operation Grange were unable to assist in their project in any way. Instead S&S were 'politely advised to access the publicly available PJ records'. (Did they bother?)

I would have tried posting the images of the pages but it never works for me, so here is the link to the page

http://asaucesaid.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/information-wants-to-be-free_26.html?spref=tw

@ Rose Quartz

Thanks very much for posting the link (I am unable to cut-and-paste it here).

This takes this matter quite a bit further.

We now know that DCI Redwood met with Summers & Swan on Friday 15 February 2013.

We don't yet know who was at that meeting and I feel sure that the Met Police will have no problem about disclosing that in answer to my FoI Act question.

We also know that by that time, Summers and Swan had already met the McCanns.

And that they were already researching for a book.

We also know that DCI Redwood's contact details had been given to Summers and Swan by the McCanns.

It would be reasonable to assume from all that, that the McCanns had met Summers and Swan probably in the latter half of 2012.

The explanation of the meeting given by DCI Redwood is: "We didn't give them any information, and we told them we weren't going to".

That raises the question of why any meeting was held at all.

When Summers and Swan first 'phoned Redwood, he or one of his minions could easily have said down the 'phone line: "Sorry, Mr Summers, we cannot say anything to you, this is a live investigation".

So why was a meeting held at all, with Summers & Swan presumably flying over from the U.S. to meet Redwood? What was discussed?

If Jo Bloggs from Chipping Sodbury rang Redwood up tomorrow and said: "I'm writing a book about the Madeleine McCann case, could I have a chat with you and your team", we all know the answer would be 'No'.

Not for the first time, I think DCI Redwood is lying about that meeting and I suggest that all manner of things must have been discussed there.

Let us also never forget that Redwood's boss at the time was Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, who, as the Investigating Officer in the case, wrongly put Barry Bulsara/George in prison for 8 years on the basis of no more than a speck of firearms residue allegedly 'found' in Bulsara's coat pocket.

And let us also recall that then Det Chief Supt Brian Moore, Campbell's boss in the investigation and the Senior Investigating Officer in the Jill Dando murder case, had previous form for involvement in exactly the same procedure in fitting up a black man, Ira Thomas, for shooting a man in Stoke Newington.

Again the 'evidence' was specks of firearm residue in a coat pocket, which the Appeal Court, in releasing Thomas, the man who had wrongly served 2.5 years in jail, said was 'almost certainly planted.

These are the types of Met Police Officers we are dealing with.

And let's take this issue of the type of Met Police Officers we are dealing with one stage further.

Who appointed Brian Moore as the Senior Investigating Officer in the Ira Thomas case?

Why, one Roy Clark, who was a senior police officer in charge of arguably the most corrupt police station anywhere in the U.K. - Stoke Newington.

And whatever happened to Roy Clark?

In 2004, when the so-called Independent Police Complaints Commission was formed, he was handed the job of Director of Investigations.

After serving a 5-year term of office there, he then moved on to his current job...

...Head of Criminal Investigations for the Inland Revenue.

The tawdry history of Hamish Campbell, Brain Moore and Roy Clark is all covered here:

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/a-biography-of-hamish-campbell-man_28.html

I totally agree Tony.

I made the same point earlier about "sorry we can't tell you anything" would have been so much easier over the phone.

But no.. we are led to believe they had to meet to be told that, at great expense and total waste of time.

I don't believe it.

For those unhappy to open links:




The redacted bits are quite interesting and I wonder what some of them actually are, including the other 'person' (it doesn't state P.O.) who met with them.

It is also not clear why this document was produced and sent to the Met's FOI team, as other than Tony's recent request I cannot find another FOI request relating to this, although it may not have been done on-line, and why has this document now become public when any FOI response would not have included it?

Presumably this must have been 'leaked' in some way.

If it was leaked that means it is significant in some way.

Reading it, it's almost as if Redwood is telling them to 'do one'. It's advice to use the PJ files is curt.

Also interesting is the line "Our clear priority is to find out what happened to Madeleine..." Not abducted, once again.

Does this mean that the Met also place great importance on the evidence (and conclusions?) of the PJ files??

I now have a transcript to hand of the telephone call and meeting between Anthony Summers and DCI Andy Redwood:

AR = DCI Andy Redwood
Sum - Anthony Summers
HC = DCS Hamish Campbell

Tel call

AR: Hallo

Sum: Anthony Summers here, author who nearly won a Pulitzer Prize, I'm writing a book about Madeleine McCann, I really need to come and see you and find out about your investigation.

AR: But this is a live investigation, I can't tell you anything.

Sum: I know, I just need to see you.

AR: But what about the cost? - air fares from New York to London and back, hotels, meals out etc.?

Sum: Money is no object. Please, I need to see you.

AR: Well OK, like I said, I can't tell you a thing, but how about 12noon on Friday 15 February? I'll make sure my boss, DCS Hamish Campbell is here as well, you know, the detective famous for his handling of the Jill Dando murder.

Sum: Ah yes. Well, see you on 15 February, then. Have a nice day!

AR: Bye.


The meeting, at Belgravia Police Station

AR & HC: Come in.

Sum: Thanks. Now what can you tell me about the investigation into Maddie's disappearance?

AR: Absolutely nothing, just like we told you a few weeks ago on the 'phone.

Sum: Oh well. Never mind. Thanks for seeing me. Have a nice day.

MEETING ENDS


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Further observations

As was noted above, the redacted parts of that meeting will be very interesting to establish.

If the person accompanying DCI Andy Redwood at that meeting was indeed DCS Hamish Campbell, the senior officer to whom DCI Redwood reported, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever to withhold it. I conclude therefore that the name of that person is someone whom the Met and the government do not wish us to know.

One credible possibility is that it was Brian Kennedy

I don't believe it was BK.  IMO, it was either a clerk taking notes of the meeting, or a senior police/security service officer.  Whoever it was, I don't think it's important/significant that the individual's name has been redacted.

PeterMac or any other Police contacts out there:
 
The more I look at this ‘incident message’ the stranger it seems.
 
I can’t see that it possibly can be the standard memo on which to minute a meeting, which is what you would have expected from this gathering.
 
Is this a ‘Child Protection’ form with the ECM on page 2 relating to ‘Every Child Matters’, and if so why would this meeting be logged on one of these?
 
Do you know what would be expected in the redacted and empty boxes, as even that is not obvious from the form?
 
Box 15 looks as if this was an 'afterthought redaction', presumably by a ‘checker’ as it is out of order.
 
………………………………..
 
As a separate issue, it is to be noted that it says:
 
‘their time would be best spent getting up to speed on the available files and forming their own opinion on it’
 
which seems to suggest that as at February 2013, Redwood was less than impressed with their knowledge of the case, making his agreeing to a meeting with them even more nonsensical and the fact that he consented must therefore have been due to a direct request from TM.

Strange document. Why create it in this form rather than just a hand written file note at the most? Uncertain provenance suggests a forgery to me.

And another thing - if the document was real wouldn't AR have shared his unique insight into the case - 'one possibility is that Madeleine is still alive and the second is that she is sadly dead'.

Doug D wrote:For those unhappy to open links:




The redacted bits are quite interesting and I wonder what some of them actually are, including the other 'person' (it doesn't state P.O.) who met with them.

It is also not clear why this document was produced and sent to the Met's FOI team, as other than Tony's recent request I cannot find another FOI request relating to this, although it may not have been done on-line, and why has this document now become public when any FOI response would not have included it?

Presumably this must have been 'leaked' in some way.

Who exactly is Rubby Swann?

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/disclosure/2014/disclosure_sep_2014.htm#sep28
 
The Met Polices disclosures under the FOI Act for w/e 28^th September have at last been posted up.
 
I have been waiting for these to try and identify the FOI request, but there is still nothing that appears to tie in with the ‘incident message’ shown above which seems strange.
 
It is possible that it has been prepared as part of the answer to Tony’s FOI request, which is still outstanding, but if that is the case, the question remains as to how this document has already got into the public domain.
 
I will trawl through all of the disclosures again in case I missed it, but am fairly sure there wasn’t one there.

REPLY BY METROPOLITAN POLICE FoI ACT SECTION

I have highlighted the most important parts in bolded dark blue.

Despite the obvious problems with the 'Smithman' sighting, the Met Police have confirmed on the written record:

A. That the two e-fits of different-looking men WERE drawn up by the Smiths, AND

B. That they purport to be of the same man.

All I can say is that just because the Met Police say so in answer to an FoI request, I do not believe either statement to be true


___________________________________________


Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014090001604
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 19/09/2014. I note you seek
access to the following information:

Request 1:

On 11 September 2014, Headline published a book, 'Looking for Madeleine',
written by U.S. authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan. There has been
widespread concern that this book omits many relevant facts about the
disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The authors have stated on the record
in their book that they "met with Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood
at the outset [who] urged us to be constantly careful that we do nothing
during our research that might...impact negativley on the search for
Madeleine".

1. On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony
Summers & Robbyn Swan?
2. Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those
meetings? AND Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

Request 2:

On 14 October 2013, on a special edition of BBC's Crimewatch programme
seen by an estimated 6.7 million people, DCI Andy Redwood of Operation
Grange displayed two e-fits, said to be of a man who, according to
presenter Matthew Amroliwala, 'could now be the key to the entire
mystery'. DCI Redwood added later in the programme: "[We have] two e-fits
that have never been in the public domain of this one individual – [it's]
really important for us to understand who he is". It was suggested by the
programme that this 'sighting' was by 'members of an Irish family'.
However, most people who have seen these two images have said that they
look like two very different people. One is clearly younger-looking than
the other, has a thinnish, triangular-shaped face, thin lips, a long nose,
a much smaller chin, and has a quite different hairstyle from the other.
Matthew Amroliwala said: "An Irish family witnessed a man carrying a
child. Could this have been Madeleine, and her abductor?" Then DCI Redwood
said: "He was a white man, in his 30s, with brown hair..." Matthew
Amroliwala then said: "Two of the witnesses helped create e-fits of the
man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true
significance of these images". However, he did not say explicitly that
these e-fits were drawn up from the Irish family's recollections. Further
concerns about these two e-fits have been expressed because, according to
information in the public domain, these e-fits were created in October
2008, 17 months after Madeleine was reported missing, and statements on
the public record by members of the Irish family admit that they only saw
this man for a few seconds at the most, in the dark, with 'weak' street
lighting. It has also been stated on the public record that a member
or members of this Irish family spoke to DCI Andy Redwood and/or members
of his team 'once in 2012 and once in 2013'. In the light of the above
concerns, please provide the following information:

1. On what date were these two e-fits created?
2. Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.
3. Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?
4. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?
5. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange

(a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone,
e-mail, letter or otherwise?

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 write
or contact James Young on telephone number 020 7230 2372 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

James Young
SC&O Information Manager
COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome 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
Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

15 October 2014

Dear Mr Bennett,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014090001604

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 19/09/2014. I note
you seek access to the following information:

1. On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony
Summers & Robbyn Swan?

2. Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those
meetings?

AND

3. On what date were these two e-fits created?

4. Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

5. Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?

7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted
within the MPS.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located records relevant to your request.

DECISION

I will answer your questions in turn.

At Question 1 you asked:

On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony Summers
& Robbyn Swan?

The MPS response is:

15/02/2013

At Question 2 you asked:

Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those
meetings?

The MPS response is:

An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and
details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section
40(2)(3) which is detailed below.

At Question 4 you asked:

Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

The MPS response is:

The program[me - sp.] was referring to members of the Irish family who created the
e-fits.

At Question 5 you asked:

Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

The MPS response is:

Yes they are the same man.

At Questions 3, 6 & 7 you asked:

3. On what date were these two e-fits created?

6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?

7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise?

The MPS response is:

DECISION

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to
your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the
parameters set out by the 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.

In accordance with the Act, this response represents a Partial Refusal
Notice for this particular request under Section 17(1) of the Act.

Please see the Legal Annex for the sections of the Act that are referred
to in this response

REASONS FOR DECISION

The information you have requested is exempt in part by the virtue of
Section 30(1)(a) and Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) of the Act.

To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be
identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be
maintained.

Section 30 is a classed based & qualified exemption

Section 30(1)(a) of the Act allows an authority to exempt information
where it has, at any time, been held for the purpose of specified criminal
and other investigations or proceedings; and where it relates to the
obtaining of information from confidential sources and was obtained or
recorded for a number of specified investigations or proceedings.

This exemption can be applied after evidencing the harm, which could be
caused by release of information and following completion of a Public
Interest Test (PIT).

 The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies
in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Section 40(2)(a)(b)(3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) is an absolute exemption and requires
neither an evidence of harm or public interest test in justification of
its use

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to
withhold information where its release would identify any living
individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998
(DPA).

The eight principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers
must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data
must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that the release of
statistics that are recorded in respect of persons arrested and victims
constitutes personal data. The release of this information would be unfair
as the persons concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS
would make this information publicly available.

In reaching my decision I have in each case, given due regard to Condition
one and six of Schedule 2 of the DPA.

Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether
consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that
consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate
processing of that data.

Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.

This exemption is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is
applied, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is
accordingly no requirement to consider whether release of information is
in the public interest or demonstrate what harm would result from
disclosure.

Section 30 Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have
considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant
for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under
the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in
disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to
provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a
genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar
disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to
individuals, or any possible judicial process.

The prevention and detection of crime is the foundation upon which
policing is built and the police have a clear responsibility to prevent
crime, arrest those responsible for committing crime or those that plan to
commit crime.

The MPS does not generally disclose information from investigations except
through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so
potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide
statements in relation to investigations.

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict
secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not
become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

The MPS is charged with enforcing the law and preventing and detecting
crime. Any information released under the Act which reveals investigative
strategies and processes would prejudice the prevention and detection of
crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Section 30 Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Information should be disclosed when it directly relates to the efficiency
and effectiveness of the MPS and its officers. The purpose of the Act is
to make public authorities more accountable and this factor may therefore,
be applied to the MPS's openness in this specific investigation.

Section 30 Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

During the course of any ongoing police investigation, enquires are made
to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case
and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience
of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and
the public release of the modus operandiemployed during the course of this
investigation could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further,
similar investigations.

It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may
compromise the MPS's ability to complete this or any future criminal
investigations.

Section 30 Balancing Test

Care must be taken to not compromise any strand of an investigation or
cause any undue harm to any families involved.

The MPS has a duty to protect both witnesses and suspects of criminal
investigations and the integrity of tried and tested investigative
techniques used now and for future criminal investigations. Therefore, I
consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested
information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would
undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS with investigations.
Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect, reducing
the quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromising
the effectiveness of any investigation.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would inhibit
the flow of free and frank discussion, sharing of advice and best
practices for investigations between police services. Anything that
undermines this would have a detrimental effect on the thoroughness,
efficiency and effectiveness of police investigations and ultimately the
apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested
information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

Additional information can be located via the below websites, please see
the links attached below:

[1]http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Made...

[2]http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles...

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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

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

Yours sincerely
   
James Young
SC&O Information Manager

LEGAL ANNEX

Section 17(1) of the Act provides:

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

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

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

1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has
at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct
with a view to it being ascertained-
(i)whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,

Section 40(2) & (3) of the Act provides:

(2) Any information to which a request for information relates is also
exempt information if-
(a) it constitutes personal data which do not fall within subsection (1),
and
(b) either the first or the second condition below is satisfied.
(3) The first condition is-
a) in a case where the information falls within any of paragraphs (a) to
(d) of the definition of "data" in section 1(1) of the [1998 c. 29.] Data
Protection Act 1998, that the disclosure of the information to a member of
the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene-

i) any of the data protection principles, or
ii) section 10 of that Act (right to prevent processing likely to cause
damage or distress), and
(b) in any other case, that the disclosure of the information to a member
of the public otherwise than under this Act would contravene any of the
data protection principles if the exemptions in section 33A (1) of the
[1998 c. 29.] Data Protection Act 1998 (which relate to manual data held
by public authorities) were disregarded
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 [3]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
References

Visible links
1. http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Made...
2. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles...
3. file:///tmp/www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk

Thank you Tony, very interesting indeed!  


I have always believed the two e-fits are of the same man and they were both done by the Smiths.  It's good to have it confirmed though.

An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and
details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section
40(2)(3) which is detailed below.

Witnesses?

BlueBag wrote:

An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and
details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section
40(2)(3) which is detailed below.

Witnesses?

I think they mean that the Detective Inspector might be a witness of some kind e.g. giving details at any trial about the evidence, could be giving details of forensic evidence for example ["on such-and-such a day I sent a bag-full of soil gathered by a police officer with a pickaxe on a patch of waste ground in Praia da Luz and Exhibit 94B gives the result of the chemical tests on the soil samples carried out by the Benfica Forensic Science Laboratory, Portugal"]

Tony,

Thank you so much for the exhaustive work you have done, and continue to do, in order to work through this extensive web of deception.  Thank you for kindly sharing all the valuable information with us!   

At the beginning of the explanation for non-disclosure of the dates you 'be highlighted this bit of the MPS response:
"To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be maintained."

Leaving to one side the seemingly ridiculous assertion that dates can possibly be "information which could cause a person arrested to be identified", the obvious question is who has been arrested and for what?

AndyB wrote:At the beginning of the explanation for non-disclosure of the dates you 'be highlighted this bit of the MPS response:
"To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be maintained."

Leaving to one side the seemingly ridiculous assertion that dates can possibly be "information which could cause a person arrested to be identified", the obvious question is who has been arrested and for what?

The potential future arrest of people who are being investigated?

Yes, but who do they mean?

I think we are looking at this too deeply.
 
The three refusals:
 
3. On what date were these two e-fits created?
 
6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?
 
7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise?
 
Taking the exemption clauses separately:
 
Condition one of the DPA requires that consideration is given to whether
consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that
consideration is given to whether disclosure would constitute legitimate
processing of that data.
 
Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is
present or would likely be received to release this information.
 
This exemption make little sense. Answers to any of these three have no bearing under the Data Protection Act that I can see, as they have already confirmed that they are the Smith family e-fits.
If they had refused to answer Q4 under the DPA it would have made more sense and they could then have refused Q7 as it could conceivably tie back to Q4.
 
However I think that all three can happily be refused under the provisions attached to the next bit, rather than the header, which seems to be what people are jumping at.
 
To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be
identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be
maintained.
 
Section 30 is a classed based & qualified exemption
 
Section 30(1)(a) of the Act allows an authority to exempt information
where it has, at any time, been held for the purpose of specified criminal
and other investigations or proceedings; and where it relates to the
obtaining of information from confidential sources and was obtained or
recorded for a number of specified investigations or proceedings.
 
The disclosure under Q4 & Q5 can be justified on the basis that this information was considered to already be public knowledge, based on Crimewatch, and was merely confirming what was implied or stated in the programme.

Q1 & Q2 were answered as they do not relate to 'the investigation'.

pennylane wrote:Tony,

Thank you so much for the exhaustive work you have done, and continue to do, in order to work through this extensive web of deception.  Thank you for kindly sharing all the valuable information with us!   

Yes - I agree with that wholeheartedly. At least we understand the SY 'take' on this.

Thanks Tony for pursuing this

Doug D wrote:I think we are looking at this too deeply.

Quite possibly.

I took the purpose of the 'header' to be an explanation of the use of section 30 but you seem to read it differently to me. Why do you think the 'header' is there? The response carries the same meaning without it as far as I can see