FOI request to Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of confidential report by Jim Gamble
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum :: CMOMM & MMRG - 10 Years On! :: The accomplishments of CMOMM and its members :: Research & Correspondence :: FOI requests
Page 1 of 1 • Share
FOI request to Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of confidential report by Jim Gamble
by Guest 26.05.19 14:30
By Tony Bennett: September 2014
NEW REQUEST 2 SEP 2014 - SUMMARY: This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case
Dear Home Office,
re: Freedom of Information - A Scoping Report in 2010 by Jim Gamble about the Madeleine McCann case
During 2009 and 2010, there were numerous reports in the British print and TV media about the preparation of a scoping report in connection with a possible review of the Madeleine McCann case. Alan Johnson was the Home Secretary at the time. Some newspapers made reference to the Metropolitan and West Yorkshire police forces having been asked to carry out this scoping exercise, but eventually it was announced that Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, was doing it. It is now known that this scoping exercise was used by the Home Office when, after the intervention of News International's then Chief Executive Officer, Ms Rebekah Brooks, the Home Office in conjunction with the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, decided to set up Operation Grange, the investigative review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This report was not made public and was described in the British press as 'top secret'.
Despite that, on Sky News yesterday (1 Sep 2014) and in several British newspapers within the past 24 hours, it was stated that a persons or persons unknown had 'briefed' Sky News and the press with partial disclosures from this 'top secret' report.
Arising out of the above facts, and notwithstanding that there continues to be an investigation into the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, please answer the following questions:
1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?
2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?
5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
If the 'public interest' test is deemed to apply to any of the above questions, the issue of whether and under what circumstances persons are at liberty to release selected details of a confidential document within an investigation to the media is, it is submitted, manifestly a matter of the public interest.
Yours faithfully,
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
4 September 2014
Anthony Bennett
Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request.
This has been assigned to a caseworker (ref 32799) who will respond to you.
We will aim to send you a full response by 30/09/2014 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request.
If you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you
FOI Requests
Home Office
_______________________________________________________________________________
Tony Bennett: Update - 14th October 2014
I have today received a response from the Home Office refusing my request in its entirety.
The reason given is Section 23 of the FoI Act and I've highlighted this and other relevant parts of the Home Office's reply.
On this occasion I have decided to exercise my right to a review and my letter today to the Home Office FoI Act Section askiong for a review is below.
To all reading this post, may I once again emphasise the truly extraordinary way that this one man - Jim Gamble - is and has been joined at the hip with the McCann Team, and has been since Week One when he asked holidaymakers who had been in Praia da Luz to send him their holiday photos. There is much more about this on this forum if you use the search facility under 'Gamble'.
Herewith:
a) the Home Office refusal letter and
b) my request for a review:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Mr Bennett,
Freedom of Information request reference: 32799
Thank you for your e-mail of 2 September concerning a Freedom of Information request related to a scoping report of 2010 by Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) about the Madeleine McCann case. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You asked for the following information:
1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?
2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?
5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
In relation to your questions above, we are able to confirm that whilst a report is held by the Home Office, it is exempt from disclosure under Section 23 (1) of the Act. This states that information held by a public authority is exempt from disclosure if it was directly or indirectly supplied, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in Section 23(3).
Section 23 is an absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest. Further details of this exemption are set out in Annex A.
The Home Office does not comment on any alleged leaks of official information, and we do not comment on specific leak enquiries or outcomes of any specific investigations.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference 32799. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
Information Access Team
Home Office Ground Floor,
Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
LONDON SW1P 4DF
____________________________________________________________________________
REPLY FROM TONY BENNETT
Dear Home Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request 'This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case'.
The Madeleine McCann case is of exceptional national and even international interest. Concern is expressed by many about the response of various government agencies and British police forces to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Referring to my request for information, every single question I asked relates to matters already fully in the public domain.
Moreover, there has unquestionably been a 'leak' to the media of part of the contents of Mr Gamble's report. The question of how and for what purpose this leak occurred is manifestly a matter of public interest. You have conceded that this is a highly confidential report - and it follows therefore that its partial disclosure, presumably with the consent of the Home Secretary, is a matter of public concern.
I have carefully considered Section 23(1) and as a result withdraw my request for some of the information.
However, in the light of my comments above, I consider it reasonable for the Home Office to disclose information clearly held by the Home Office in answer to the following questions:
2. On what date was Jim Gamble first approached to carry out this [scoping] exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/this_request_is_about_factual_ma
Yours faithfully,
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
17 October 2014
Dear Anthony Bennett,
Thank you for your email in which you ask for an Internal Review of our response to your Freedom of Information Request.
The internal Review has been assigned to the Case Owner who will respond to you accordingly, under FOI Ref 32799
We will aim to send you a full response by 11/11/2014, which is Twenty working days from the date we received your request.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you
FOI Requests
Home Office
____________________________________________________________________
Original can be seen here:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10233-a-new-freedom-of-information-act-request-to-the-home-office-about-the-selective-leaking-to-the-media-of-a-confidential-report-byjim-gamble-former-head-of-ceop#277978
NEW REQUEST 2 SEP 2014 - SUMMARY: This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case
Dear Home Office,
re: Freedom of Information - A Scoping Report in 2010 by Jim Gamble about the Madeleine McCann case
During 2009 and 2010, there were numerous reports in the British print and TV media about the preparation of a scoping report in connection with a possible review of the Madeleine McCann case. Alan Johnson was the Home Secretary at the time. Some newspapers made reference to the Metropolitan and West Yorkshire police forces having been asked to carry out this scoping exercise, but eventually it was announced that Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, was doing it. It is now known that this scoping exercise was used by the Home Office when, after the intervention of News International's then Chief Executive Officer, Ms Rebekah Brooks, the Home Office in conjunction with the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, decided to set up Operation Grange, the investigative review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This report was not made public and was described in the British press as 'top secret'.
Despite that, on Sky News yesterday (1 Sep 2014) and in several British newspapers within the past 24 hours, it was stated that a persons or persons unknown had 'briefed' Sky News and the press with partial disclosures from this 'top secret' report.
Arising out of the above facts, and notwithstanding that there continues to be an investigation into the facts surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, please answer the following questions:
1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?
2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?
5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
If the 'public interest' test is deemed to apply to any of the above questions, the issue of whether and under what circumstances persons are at liberty to release selected details of a confidential document within an investigation to the media is, it is submitted, manifestly a matter of the public interest.
Yours faithfully,
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
4 September 2014
Anthony Bennett
Thank you for contacting the Home Office with your request.
This has been assigned to a caseworker (ref 32799) who will respond to you.
We will aim to send you a full response by 30/09/2014 which is twenty working days from the date we received your request.
If you have any questions then please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you
FOI Requests
Home Office
_______________________________________________________________________________
Tony Bennett: Update - 14th October 2014
I have today received a response from the Home Office refusing my request in its entirety.
The reason given is Section 23 of the FoI Act and I've highlighted this and other relevant parts of the Home Office's reply.
On this occasion I have decided to exercise my right to a review and my letter today to the Home Office FoI Act Section askiong for a review is below.
To all reading this post, may I once again emphasise the truly extraordinary way that this one man - Jim Gamble - is and has been joined at the hip with the McCann Team, and has been since Week One when he asked holidaymakers who had been in Praia da Luz to send him their holiday photos. There is much more about this on this forum if you use the search facility under 'Gamble'.
Herewith:
a) the Home Office refusal letter and
b) my request for a review:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HOME OFFICE REFUSAL LETTER Mr A Bennett request-227967-6e6056c0@whatdotheyknow.com 14 October 2014 |
Freedom of Information request reference: 32799
Thank you for your e-mail of 2 September concerning a Freedom of Information request related to a scoping report of 2010 by Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) about the Madeleine McCann case. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You asked for the following information:
1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?
2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?
5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
In relation to your questions above, we are able to confirm that whilst a report is held by the Home Office, it is exempt from disclosure under Section 23 (1) of the Act. This states that information held by a public authority is exempt from disclosure if it was directly or indirectly supplied, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in Section 23(3).
Section 23 is an absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest. Further details of this exemption are set out in Annex A.
The Home Office does not comment on any alleged leaks of official information, and we do not comment on specific leak enquiries or outcomes of any specific investigations.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference 32799. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
Information Access Team
Home Office Ground Floor,
Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
LONDON SW1P 4DF
____________________________________________________________________________
REPLY FROM TONY BENNETT
Dear Home Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request 'This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case'.
The Madeleine McCann case is of exceptional national and even international interest. Concern is expressed by many about the response of various government agencies and British police forces to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Referring to my request for information, every single question I asked relates to matters already fully in the public domain.
Moreover, there has unquestionably been a 'leak' to the media of part of the contents of Mr Gamble's report. The question of how and for what purpose this leak occurred is manifestly a matter of public interest. You have conceded that this is a highly confidential report - and it follows therefore that its partial disclosure, presumably with the consent of the Home Secretary, is a matter of public concern.
I have carefully considered Section 23(1) and as a result withdraw my request for some of the information.
However, in the light of my comments above, I consider it reasonable for the Home Office to disclose information clearly held by the Home Office in answer to the following questions:
2. On what date was Jim Gamble first approached to carry out this [scoping] exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/this_request_is_about_factual_ma
Yours faithfully,
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: FOI Requests
Home Office
17 October 2014
Dear Anthony Bennett,
Thank you for your email in which you ask for an Internal Review of our response to your Freedom of Information Request.
The internal Review has been assigned to the Case Owner who will respond to you accordingly, under FOI Ref 32799
We will aim to send you a full response by 11/11/2014, which is Twenty working days from the date we received your request.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you
FOI Requests
Home Office
____________________________________________________________________
Original can be seen here:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10233-a-new-freedom-of-information-act-request-to-the-home-office-about-the-selective-leaking-to-the-media-of-a-confidential-report-byjim-gamble-former-head-of-ceop#277978
Guest- Guest
Similar topics» Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
» Home Office FoI request CR14428 PLUS FOUR MORE FOI QUESTIONS and COMPLAINT
» Home Office replies to a Freedom of Information Act request about the 'Letter to Portugal'
» Why the Home Office is taking so long to answer 12 simple FOI questions about Madeleine McCann - by the Home Office
» THE 28 FOI ACT QUESTIONS TO THE HOME OFFICE: A progress report
» Home Office FoI request CR14428 PLUS FOUR MORE FOI QUESTIONS and COMPLAINT
» Home Office replies to a Freedom of Information Act request about the 'Letter to Portugal'
» Why the Home Office is taking so long to answer 12 simple FOI questions about Madeleine McCann - by the Home Office
» THE 28 FOI ACT QUESTIONS TO THE HOME OFFICE: A progress report
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum :: CMOMM & MMRG - 10 Years On! :: The accomplishments of CMOMM and its members :: Research & Correspondence :: FOI requests
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
