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

My request in blue

Reasons for refusal in red

I decided not to appeal this decision.

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

From: Anthony Bennett

29 May 2014

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

I write re Operation Grange.

It was reported in newspapers in Britain and in Portugal at the
beginning of May 2014 that the cost charged by the Portuguese
authorities for hiring a Portuguese Alouette Mark III helicopter in
connection with the ongoing search for Madeleine McCann was being
met by the Metropolitan Police.

It has again been reported in newspapers in Britain and in Portugal
at the end of May 2014 that the cost of what has been described as
a series of 'digs' (said to include ground-penetrating radar and
excavations) at up to 5 sites around Praia da Luz will also be, in
part at least, the subject of charges rendered by the Portuguese
Police and, again, will be paid for by the Metropolitan Police.

Having regard to the fact that this is an ongoing investigation,
apparently by two police forces - but also having regard to the
fact that the fact that the Portuguese authorities are rendering
bills to the Metropolitan Police and that this has been confirmed
on the record by the Portuguese authorities and made public in many
newspapers in both countries - I confine my FOI Act questions
merely to establishing the available data relating to these costs:

1. In relation to each separate item of expenditure (a) the
helicopter searches and (b) the digs:

A. On what date was each formal request for assistance made to the
Portuguese authorities?

B. On what date did the Portuguese agree each set of searches?

C. On what date (in each case) did the Portuguese authorities
notify you of their proposed charges for these searches?

D. How much was the bill in each case?

E. Has either of the bills been paid yet, if so when?

2. Were International Letters Rogatory sent in respect of either
request?

A. If so, on what date was each ILOR sent?

B. On what date was each request granted by the Portuguese
authorities?

Yours faithfully,

Anthony Bennett
Link to this

Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

30 May 2014

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014050002606
I write in connection with your request for information which was received
by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 29/05/2014. I note you seek
access to the following information:

It was reported in newspapers in Britain and in Portugal at the beginning
of May 2014 that the cost charged by the Portuguese authorities for hiring
a Portuguese Alouette Mark III helicopter in connection with the ongoing
search for Madeleine McCann was being met by the Metropolitan Police. It
has again been reported in newspapers in Britain and in Portugal at the
end of May 2014 that the cost of what has been described as a series of
'digs' (said to include ground-penetrating radar and excavations) at up to
5 sites around Praia da Luz will also be, in part at least, the subject of
charges rendered by the Portuguese Police and, again, will be paid for by
the Metropolitan Police. Having regard to the fact that this is an ongoing
investigation, apparently by two police forces - but also having regard to
the fact that the fact that the Portuguese authorities are rendering bills
to the Metropolitan Police and that this has been confirmed on the record
by the Portuguese authorities and made public in many newspapers in both
countries -

I confine my FOI Act questions merely to establishing the available data
relating to these costs:

1. In relation to each separate item of expenditure

(a) the helicopter searches and
(b) the digs:

A. On what date was each formal request for assistance made to the
Portuguese authorities?
B. On what date did the Portuguese agree each set of searches?
C. On what date (in each case) did the Portuguese authorities notify you
of their proposed charges for these searches?
D. How much was the bill in each case?
E. Has either of the bills been paid yet, if so when?

2. Were International Letters Rogatory sent in respect of either request?

A. If so, on what date was each ILOR sent?
B. On what date was each request granted by the Portuguese authorities?

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 Yvette Taylor on telephone number 020 7230 6267 quoting the
reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
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)

11 June 2014

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014050002606

I respond in connection with your request for information which was
received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 29/05/2014. I note
you seek access to the following information:

I write re Operation Grange. It was reported in newspapers in Britain and
in Portugal at the beginning of May 2014 that the cost charged by the
Portuguese authorities for hiring a Portuguese Alouette Mark III
helicopter in connection with the ongoing search for Madeleine McCann was
being met by the Metropolitan Police. It has again been reported in
newspapers in Britain and in Portugal at the end of May 2014 that the cost
of what has been described as a series of 'digs' (said to include
ground-penetrating radar and excavations) at up to 5 sites around Praia da
Luz will also be, in part at least, the subject of charges rendered by the
Portuguese Police and, again, will be paid for by the Metropolitan Police.
Having regard to the fact that this is an ongoing investigation,
apparently by two police forces - but also having regard to the fact that
the fact that the Portuguese authorities are rendering bills to the
Metropolitan Police and that this has been confirmed on the record by the
Portuguese authorities and made public in many newspapers in both
countries - I confine my FOI Act questions merely to establishing the
available data relating to these costs: 1. In relation to each separate
item of expenditure (a) the helicopter searches and (b) the digs: A. On
what date was each formal request for assistance made to the Portuguese
authorities? B. On what date did the Portuguese agree each set of
searches? C. On what date (in each case) did the Portuguese authorities
notify you of their proposed charges for these searches? D. How much was
the bill in each case? E. Has either of the bills been paid yet, if so
when? 2. Were International Letters Rogatory sent in respect of either
request? A. If so, on what date was each ILOR sent? B. On what date was
each request granted by the Portuguese authorities? .

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.

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.

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 Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act.

The investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann 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.

You have asked for information related to the costs incurred regarding
searches being made in Portugal for Madeleine McCann.

The MPS refuses access to the requested information by virtue of the
following exemptions:

Section 27 - International Relations


Section 30 - Investigations


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 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.

Public Interest Test - International Relations

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole.
It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may
compromise the MPS's relationship with international Police Services and
international courts.

International Relations Public interest considerations favouring
disclosure

There is a public interest in this high profile case and disclosure could
provide the public with an insight into how international Police Services
cooperate.

International Relations Public interest considerations favouring
non-disclosure

The British Government develops and maintains a robust relationship with
other nation states which can promote mutual interest in trade, defence,
environmental issues, human rights and the fight against terrorism and
international crime.

There is the prospect that should the MPS release information which was
detrimental to its relationship with one country, other countries or
international organisations would reconsider their affinity with the UK.

This would consequently affect the UK's international abilities relating
to its overseas citizens, consular and commercial interests.

It could also influence the sharing of information provided during the
course of political and diplomatic exchanges.

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.

Information relating to an investigation will rarely be disclosed under
the Act and only where there is a strong public interest consideration
favouring disclosure.

Section 30 being a qualified exemption there is a statutory requirement to
carry out a PIT when considering any disclosure and this is detailed
below.

Public Interest Test - Investigations.

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of
greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the
public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS's
ability to complete any future criminal investigations.

Evidence of Harm - Investigations

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed we 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 criminal
and/or civil process.

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.
 
Detailing the resources allocated to a specific area of an investigation
will give a clear insight into the nature and scope of any enquiry. Should
the public be given such information suspects or potential suspects not
yet arrested or interviewed could be alerted to police interest or the
extent of police interest. As such while such information may seem
innocuous there is the potential for that information to frustrate the
operational enquiry team by alerting suspects or giving then prior notice
of police activity.
 
Sect 30 Investigations Public Interest considerations favouring
disclosure.

Details relating to the costs of investigating the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann have been periodically published by the MPS and the Home
Office.
 
The public therefore have a genuine interest in being informed as to the
nature and circumstances of this case.

Sect 30 Investigations Public interest considerations favouring
non-disclosure

During the course of any 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
enquiry could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further, similar
investigations.

As this is an ongoing investigation, the MPS would not wish to jeopardise
the outcome by providing an ongoing commentary.

Additionally, there is already a large amount of information in the public
domain related to Operation Grange. It is public knowledge that a team of
MPS officers has recently been deployed to Portugal to conduct a strand of
the investigation there.

The MPS and the Home Office regularly publishes information about the
investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Information
regarding Operation Grange has been published by the MPS in previous
Freedom of Information Act request responses. Additionally, the Home
Office publishes information related to the costs of Operation Grange.
Please find below internet links of examples of such disclosures: 


[b]http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclo...

http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclo...

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicatio...

Balance Test

Release of the requested information may cause harm to the international
relations between the UK and Portugal and the ongoing investigation into
the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Disclosure under the Act is a disclosure to the world not just to the
individual making the request. The release of the requested information
may disclose the level of policing interest in a particular area of
policing and may give criminals an insight into the nature and scope of an
investigation.

The public's interest would not be served in releasing information if its
release could compromise this or any future policing investigation. Our
decision is that the public interest favours withholding this information.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

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 on 0207 230 6267 or via return E-mail, quoting the reference
number above.

Yours sincerely

Yvette Taylor
Information Manager

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
Phone: 01625 545 700

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 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 27(1)(a)(c)(d) of the Act provides:

(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act
would, or would be likely to, prejudice-
(a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other State,
(b) relations between the United Kingdom and any international
organisation or international court,
(c) the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, or
(d) the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of its interests
abroad.
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,

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: @metpoliceukhttp://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/disclo...[/b]

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

It must have taken them longer to come up with that bollocks than it would have done to just answer the questions!

Doug D wrote:It must have taken them longer to come up with that bollocks than it would have done to just answer the questions!

I have discovered that a broadly similar request - relating this time specifically to the Praia da Luz 'dig' - was made on 12 June 2014 by a Mr Mike Stapes.

Nearly three months later, and well outside the statutory 20-day time limit for processing requests, the Metropolitan Police still haven't answered.

These were Mike Stapes' questions:

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

    
From: Mike Stapes

12 June 2014

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?

Yours faithfully,

Mike Stapes

Thank you Tony for clarifying that and Doug for summing up what I was thinking. I am sorry Tony but I feel this FOI will be in some way buried "accidentally" by the powers that be.

I do not have the same level of knowledge about the McCann case as others here. I followed it avidly at first as I just do not buy the parents story and I figured at some time the truth would out, whatever that was.

In recent years I have basically lost all hope for justice, so reading too much about the case just makes me angry and frustrated.

As soon as Tony posted I thought his FOI request was absolutely excellent. However I had the opinion that one way or another it will be filed in the bin.

I understand MPs and certain celebrities had their sins hidden by the establishment, but 2 doctors? Not MPs, not the likes of Max Clifford who controlled the press. Who on earth do these people know to get all of this special treatment, while GA has been destroyed? Makes no sense.

Good try Tony but I think this just sums up the impossible task for the truth.

I feel we are just a few now seeking the truth when the odds are hopelessly against us.  

I am 100% sure the perpetrator/perpetrators of this crime are being protected at the highest level whoever they may be.

Pershing36 wrote:Good try Tony but I think this just sums up the impossible task for the truth.

I feel we are just a few now seeking the truth when the odds are hopelessly against us.  

I am 100% sure the perpetrator/perpetrators of this crime are being protected at the highest level whoever they may be.

Well if you genuinely feel like that, just reflect on all the times there have been just a few devotees to a cause that has eventually won out: whether it be Einsteinian physics, Christianity, the anti-slavery movement, Fidel Castro's small band of followers, Gay Marriage, feminism... history is replete with such examples.

Okeydokey wrote:

Well if you genuinely feel like that, just reflect on all the times there have been just a few devotees to a cause that has eventually won out: whether it be Einsteinian physics, Christianity, the anti-slavery movement, Fidel Castro's small band of followers, Gay Marriage, feminism... history is replete with such examples.

@ Okeydokey,

Or, in the case of Albert Dreyfus, the French Jew wrongly accused of spying and treason, just one man, the famous writer Emile Zola, stood alone in alleging that a serious injustice had been done against Dreyfus - and despite having to go into exile as a result of his claims, set out in his public letter J'accuse, he won out in the end. It was in fact a Major Esterhazy who was eventually identified as the man who had leaked secrets to the Germans 

He kept going despite the smears against him:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair

Re; Tony's last post.   That was before the internet as well.    Only takes one to stand tall and there are many researchers out there fighting for little Maddie.  Especially well done to Tony (again) who never flinches in asking the authorities these questions. 

plebgate wrote:Re; Tony's last post.   That was before the internet as well.    Only takes one to stand tall and there are many researchers out there fighting for little Maddie.  Especially well done to Tony (again) who never flinches in asking the authorities these questions. 

I second that

IMO, there will come a day when whoever is being protected will become unprotected.

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

Thanks.

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.

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?

At last!


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.

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.

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!

Ugandan Relations?