Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum > The 7/7 Inquests > FOIs: Information released during the Inquests


Posted by: Bridget Jun 28 2011, 01:10 PM
QUOTE
FOIA Request

From:    "J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign" <julyseventh@fastmail.net>
To:    foi@Bedfordshire.pnn.police.uk
Date:  Wed, 22 Jun 2011 9:53 AM

Dear Sir/Madam

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign request the following information under
the FOIA;

The reason for Bedfordshire Police requesting the removal of a Fiat
Brava registration number R662 DSF from Luton station car park on 7th
July 2005 as mentioned in the transcripts of the 7/7 Inquests on
3/03/2011:



21 When the CCTV from the days moving forward from the
22 7 July was reviewed, it was noticed that that Fiat Brava
23 had, in fact, been removed by a vehicle removal company
24 on behalf of Bedfordshire Police, and Jermaine Lindsay
25 was associated with that vehicle as the registered

23

1 keeper.

p23
http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/03032011pm.htm

Yours
J7

QUOTE
Our Ref: RB/2011/00653   

julyseventh@fastmail.net

Dear Sirs,

REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Reference No F-2011-00653

I write in connection with your request for information received on 31st May 2011. I note you seek access to the following information:

The reason for Bedfordshire Police requesting the removal of a Fiat Brava registration number  R662 DSF from Luton station car park on 7th July 2005 as mentioned in the transcripts of the 7/7 Inquests on 3/03/2011:

When the CCTV from the days moving forward from the 7 July was reviewed, it was noticed that  that Fiat Brava had, in fact, been removed by a vehicle removal company on behalf of  Bedfordshire Police, and Jermaine Lindsay was associated with that vehicle as the registered 1  keeper.

I am required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) to handle all requests in a manner that is blind to the identity of the requestor.  Any information released in response to a request is regarded as being published, and therefore in the public domain without caveat.

Following receipt of your request, searches were conducted within Bedfordshire Police to locate information relevant to your request.

Decision

1. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested.

Reason for Decision

Section 21 of the Act provides:

Information which is reasonably accessible to the applicant otherwise than under Section 1 is exempt information …

For the purposes of subsection 1, information which is held by a public authority and does not fall within subsection 2b is not to be regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the information is available from the public authority itself on request, unless the information is made available in accordance with the authority’s publication scheme and any payment required is specified in, or determined in accordance with, the scheme.


The information you have requested is available by accessing our Disclosure Log on our website using the following link:

http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/pdf/Response%20Letter%202011-00236.pdf

Complaint Rights

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

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Bedfordshire Police.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter please do not hesitate to contact me quoting the above reference number.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Kevin Sharp
Information Services Supervisor

The pdf linked in the response above:
QUOTE
Our Ref: 2011/00236 and 00237
                                                                                                          4 April 2011

Dear Member of the Public,

REQUEST UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT Reference No F-2011-00236 & 00237

With reference to your requests for information received on 7 March 2011, I note you seek access to the following information:

        The 7 July inquests record that Lindsay's Fiat Brava, R662 DSF, had been removed from Luton Train Station car park at the request of Bedfordshire Police:

        21 When the CCTV from the days moving forward from the
        22 7 July was reviewed, it was noticed that that Fiat Brava
        23 had, in fact, been removed by a vehicle removal company
        24 on behalf of Bedfordshire Police, and Jermaine Lindsay
        25 was associated with that vehicle as the registered

        23
                1 keeper.

        http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/11 102010pm.htm

        What was the police's justification for the removal of the vehicle?

        How did the car's presence come to the attention of Bedfordshire Police after the 6th July but before the 12th July?

        Did mobile ANPR surveillance vans or other surveillance methods play a part in the detection of or
        locating the vehicle?

        What was the date and time that the car was first noticed by the police or was removed from the car park,
        between the 6th and the 12th July?

        What was the date and time of the car's arrival at the compound to where it had been removed?

        Did at any point Bedfordshire Police attempt to contact the registered keeper of the vehicle, on or after the
        7th July 2005?

        What were the contact details of the registered keeper as then known by Bedfordshire Police?
        And


        13  On 27 May, just five weeks before, Luton police
        14  received a call from a man to the effect that there was
        15  a gunman in his flat. When armed police arrived,
        16  neither the owner of the flat, presumably the person who
        17  called, nor the gunman were there. All had fled.
        18  Then a member of the public called in to say he had
        19  seen three males, two black and one Asian, wearing
20  balaclavas and running down the road and  he saw one of
          21  them holding a handgun. They got into a car and he
          22  managed to the a note of the car registration number,
          23  and it was a Fiat, R662 DSF. Lindsay's car.

          I request any press releases or appeals for information released in relation to the above incident.

I am required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) to handle all requests in a manner that is blind to the identity of the requestor.    Any information released in response to a request is regarded as being published, and therefore in the public domain without caveat.

Decision

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested.

Reason for Decision

Section 21 of the Act provides:

Information    which    is  reasonably    accessible    to  the  application    otherwise    than  under  Section    1  is  exempt
information …

For  the  purposes    of  subsection  1,  information  which  is  held  by  a  public  authority  and  does  not  fall  within
subsection 2b is not to be regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the information is
available from the public authority itself on request, unless the information is made available in accordance with
the authority’s publication scheme and any payment required is specified in, or determined in accordance with, 
the scheme.

The information you have requested in the first four questions is available from
http://www.policeoracle.com/news/Bedfordshire-ACC-Responds-To-7-7-Inquest-Comments_31076.html


Bedfordshire Police do not hold the exact time of the arrival of the vehicle at the secured garage but can confirm it was on 7 July after 20:46 hours.

Bedfordshire Police have conducted searches for the remainder of the information requested.  These searches failed to locate any records / documents / press releases relevant to your request.  Accordingly I have determined that the information to which you seek access is not held by Bedfordshire Police.

Please be advised that Bedfordshire Police handed that car over to the Metropolitan Police, who may be able to assist you further.

The police oracle article linked above:
QUOTE
Bedfordshire ACC Responds To 7/7 Inquest Comments

Mon, 21 February 2011 Courtesy of: Bedfordshire Police

Following evidnece at the inquest hearing relating to the 7/7 London Bombings', where a car wanted in connection to a Bedfordshire crime was later found to be involved with the bombers, Assistant Chief Constable Andrew Richer said:

"Bedfordshire Police had been investigating an incident classified as an aggravated burglary in Luton, which occurred on 27 May 2005, five and a half weeks before the London Bombings. It had been a difficult investigation to progress, as no victim could be traced and 'eye witness' accounts about what had happened were extremely limited. Despite this the incident was recorded as an aggravated burglary and treated seriously.

Inquiries into a vehicle which was potentially involved, a Fiat Brava, were also difficult to move forward as neither the car or the registered owner could be traced. The vehicle was therefore flagged on the Police National Computer (PNC) as wanted for use in a crime. Research on PNC in fact showed the vehicle as abandoned, which also made it difficult for police to prove if the registered owner still had a connection with the car at the time the aggravated burglary was committed. This combination of factors meant the investigation could not easily be progressed. However, it is important to add the case remained open.

“ it quickly became apparent that the Fiat Brava was also significant to the 7/7 Bombing investigation”

Weeks later, the tragic and terrible events of 7 July prompted an immediate national police response. In Bedfordshire that included using 'Automatic Number Plate Recognition' (ANPR) technology on the evening of July 7 to locate suspicious vehicles in the county's railway car parks.

The Fiat Brava was found in the Luton railway car park because it was identified as a vehicle used in the previous aggravated burglary. It was immediately removed to a secure garage for subsequent forensic examination in relation to the May offence, and regarded as a break in the Luton investigation.

Clearly, once the Met Police had examined the CCTV footage from the car park, it quickly became apparent that the Fiat Brava was also significant to the 7/7 Bombing investigation. The car was then handed over to the Met Police for further investigation."

Today's questions at the 7/7 inquest were entirely legitimate but it needs to be understood they were posed with the full benefit of information gathered after 7/7. At the time of the incident in May there was no suggestion that the events were connected with terrorist suspects of any sort. Equally there was no suggestion that the incident had any unusual significance. There was no evidence to suggest anyone had been seriously injured and what had occurred remained unclear despite substantial enquiries. The incident received a proportionate investigative response given the information available at the time.

Which can only lead to the question why "the tragic and terrible events of 7 July prompted an immediate national police response. In Bedfordshire that included using 'Automatic Number Plate Recognition' (ANPR) technology on the evening of July 7 to locate suspicious vehicles in the county's railway car parks."

and "it was immediately removed to a secure garage for subsequent forensic examination in relation to the May offence, and regarded as a break in the Luton investigation."

Did this forensic investigation take place before 12th July which might then explain this:

QUOTE
A day after the attacks Chief Superintendent Simon Chesterman, the most senior police officer in Bucks, arrived at his office at Aylesbury Police Station to be confronted by Scotland Yard's counter terrorism unit.

Detectives believed that Lindsay, the Kings Cross bomber who killed 26 people, was, in fact, a fifth bomber, was still alive and posed an immediate threat to public safety.

Officers had discovered the car of Germaine Lindsay, who lived in Northern Road, abandoned at Luton train station, where he travelled to London with three other bombers.

What followed, said Chief Supt Chesterman, was the biggest police operation he had ever witnessed in 22 years on the force.

He said: "On July 8 I arrived in my office to be confronted by a team from the anti-terrorist squad."

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/77-inquests-fiat-brava-foxtrot-tango.html

Posted by: Bridget Jul 14 2011, 02:28 PM
Following on from http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2010/11/77-inquests-fiat-brava-foxtrot-tango.html J7 sent the following FOI request which we have since forwarded to the Met:
QUOTE
RFI2011000512 Response

From:    "FOI" <FOI@thamesvalley.pnn.police.uk>
To:    "J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign" <julyseventh@fastmail.net>
Date:    Thu, 14 Jul 2011 2:33 PM 

Dear J7

Reference No: RFI2011000512

I write in connection with the above-referenced Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which for clarity I repeat:

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign request the following information under the FOIA:

This report appeared in the Bucks Herald dated 25/10/2005:

AYLESBURY WAS '30 MINUTES FROM EVACUATION'

Published on Tue Oct 25 13:49:38 BST 2005

(TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25) Aylesbury was just 30 minutes away from a full evacuation following the July 7 bombings when anti-terrorism police first connected the town to the terror attacks in London, The Bucks Herald can reveal.

New details emerged last week about the immediate threat police believed Germaine Lindsay posed to the public after the suicide bombings on London's transport network rocked the capital.

A day after the attacks Chief Superintendent Simon Chesterman, the most senior police officer in Bucks, arrived at his office at Aylesbury Police Station to be confronted by Scotland Yard's counter terrorism unit.

Detectives believed that Lindsay, the Kings Cross bomber who killed 26 people, was, in fact, a fifth bomber, was still alive and posed an immediate threat to public safety.

Officers had discovered the car of Germaine Lindsay, who lived in Northern Road, abandoned at Luton train station, where he travelled to London with three other bombers.

What followed, said Chief Supt Chesterman, was the biggest police operation he had ever witnessed in 22 years on the force.

He said: "On July 8 I arrived in my office to be confronted by a team from the anti-terrorist squad."

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/local/aylesbury_was_30_minutes_from_evacuation_1_600516

Can you confirm the date that Chief Supt Simon Chesterman was first contacted in connection to the attacks in London on 7th July 2005?

Thames Valley Police does not hold any information relevant to your request. The Metropolitan Police were the lead agency for this investigation and they will hold the information requested. Any notes made by Chief Superintendent Chesterman at the time are no longer held by Thames Valley Police.


Please contact me quoting the above reference number if you would like to discuss this matter further and may I take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in Thames Valley Police.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Shields

Information Compliance Researcher

The original Bucks Herald article has since gone but is cached:
CODE
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bucksherald.co.uk%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Faylesbury_was_30_minutes_from_evacuation_1_600516

Posted by: Bridget Jul 22 2011, 02:01 PM
This is one we should take right up to the Information Commissioner if it is refused as the logs were mentioned in the Inquests and should be aduced into evidence:
QUOTE
CCTV viewing logs as mentioned during the 7/7 inquests

From:    karen.fox2@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Fri, 22 Jul 2011 2:39 PM

Dear Ms Dunne

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060003689

I write in connection with your request for information  which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign request the following information under the FOIA:

1. The CCTV viewing logs as mentioned by Ms Gallagher during the recent 7/7Inquests:

MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended: 11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th. page 65, line 15 on Transcript, 14 October 2010 -

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/14102010pm.htm 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 30 (a) (b)
Section 38 (1)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 22 August 2011


May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 02072304657 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
Information Manager

The exemptions quoted above are:
QUOTE
30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

    (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,

        (b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,
or

QUOTE
Section 38: Health And Safety

    (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to—

        (a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
        (b) endanger the safety of any individual.

    (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).

CODE
http://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php/Main_Page

The Met would have a hard time applying either of these exemptions imo to this request.

Posted by: Bridget Jul 22 2011, 02:14 PM
Ditto to my comments above:
QUOTE
Copy of the full Theseus report July 7 Inquest

From:    karen.fox2@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Fri, 22 Jul 2011 3:05

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060004264

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

    J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign request a copy of the full Theseus report - July 7 Inquest ref: INQ11410 - attributed to DCS Douglas McKenna on 3/03/2011:

16     Q. Although the nature and efficacy of the investigation
17     into the 7 July bombs is outside the scope of these
18     proceedings, have you been permitted to look at some of
19     the ancillary points that have arisen?
20    A. I have done, my Lady.
21     Q. All right. Well, can we just address some of them,
22     please? You've set them out in a helpful and detailed
23     report at INQ11410.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-02-28-03-04-week-19/7_july_inquests_2011-03-03_am-session.pdf


Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(B) provides that we can extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and
B) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(B) or (2)(B) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):
Section 30 (a) (B)
Section 38 (1)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 23 August 2011

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 02072304657 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
Information Manager

Posted by: brian123 Jul 24 2011, 04:26 PM
If the bombings on the 7th caused the Bedfordshire police to search train car parks for suspicious vehicles and they found the Fiat, R662 DSF connected to fire arm report.
Possibly on the 8th. They would have been able to find Lindsay's address and visited it before the 12th. You would think that they would also check the Luton CCTV on the 8th as well.
Then when Lindsay's name is matched to items found on the train possibly on the 8th they would have a reason to search his address.
Indeed if this story is correct they would hardly need the Thamselink CCTV found after days of searching on the 12th no I mean after a day of searching on the 11th no sorry I mean after 10 minutes of searching on the 10th.

How much better the story could be constructed (or fall apart) if they would grant a few more FOI requests or perhaps as they should be more correctly called FTBI Freedom to block information requests

Keep digging

Posted by: Bridget Aug 2 2011, 12:47 PM
QUOTE
FOIA: Response time extended (Public Interest Test)

From:    gill.brown@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 2 Aug 2011 9:52 AM

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011070001137

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/07/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

    During the recent 7/7 Inquests no CCTV from the trains prior to the explosions was shown, nor was it even claimed to exist, despite it's existence as claimed by Rachel North in a discussion held in May 2006 between survivors and bereaved and the then Home Secretary, John Reid and a member of Counter Terrorism:    "The first question was from a man who lost his boyfriend at Russell   Square who wanted to know if there were CCTV images of the bombers    on the trains, and whether he could see the last minutes of his    loved one. The Counter Terrorism representative said that there    were, but they had not been released, as the post-bomb CCTV images    'were disturbing'. Dr. Reid promised to investigate whether images of the train before the bomb could be shown privately to the bereaved man. It sounded like the CCTV images were not of good quality."

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/05/meeting-new-home-secretary.html

CCTV from the train carriages would be able to show the presence of MSK and Tanweer for a considerable length of time on journeys away from King's Cross, and also the entry of three of the accused onto the carriages from the platforms at King's Cross. Could you please confirm:

1. Does CCTV from any of the the trains and/or carriages exist?

2. Does it show the presence of any of the 3 accused men, MSK, Tanweer and/or Lindsay?

3. Will the pre-explosion CCTV be made available?

4. Was the CCTV made available to the 7/7 Inquests and the counsel for the bereaved?


Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(B) provides that we can extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and
B) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(B) or (2)(B) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 30 (1) (a) and (B)
Section 38 (1)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 30 August 2011.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 2401 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Gill Brown
Information Manager

Posted by: Bridget Aug 23 2011, 11:28 AM
QUOTE (Bridget @ Jul 22 2011, 02:14 PM)
Ditto to my comments above:
QUOTE
Copy of the full Theseus report July 7 Inquest

From:    karen.fox2@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Fri, 22 Jul 2011 3:05

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060004264

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

    J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign request a copy of the full Theseus report - July 7 Inquest ref: INQ11410 - attributed to DCS Douglas McKenna on 3/03/2011:

16     Q. Although the nature and efficacy of the investigation
17     into the 7 July bombs is outside the scope of these
18     proceedings, have you been permitted to look at some of
19     the ancillary points that have arisen?
20    A. I have done, my Lady.
21     Q. All right. Well, can we just address some of them,
22     please? You've set them out in a helpful and detailed
23     report at INQ11410.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-02-28-03-04-week-19/7_july_inquests_2011-03-03_am-session.pdf


Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(B) provides that we can extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and
B) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(B) or (2)(B) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):
Section 30 (a) (B)
Section 38 (1)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 23 August 2011

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 02072304657 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
Information Manager

I shall complain/appeal on the basis that it was quite arbitrary which pages were adduced and as the families of the 4 had no representation there was no opportunity to examine the report:
QUOTE
FOIA: Reject - Fully Exempt

From:    gill.brown@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:43 AM

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060004264

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign request a copy of the full Theseus
report - July 7 Inquest ref: INQ11410 - attributed to DCS Douglas
McKenna on 3/03/2011:

16     Q. Although the nature and efficacy of the investigation
17     into the 7 July bombs is outside the scope of these
18     proceedings, have you been permitted to look at some of
19     the ancillary points that have arisen?
20    A. I have done, my Lady.
21     Q. All right. Well, can we just address some of them,
22     please? You've set them out in a helpful and detailed
23     report at INQ11410.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-02-28-03-04-week-19/7_july_inquests_2011-03-03_am-session.pdf


DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 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
© states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 32 (1) Court records of the Act provides:

(1)Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it is held only by virtue of being contained in—

(a)any document filed with, or otherwise placed in the custody of, a court for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter,

(b)any document served upon, or by, a public authority for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter, or

©any document created by—

(i)a court, or

(ii)a member of the administrative staff of a court,

for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter.

This is an absolute exemption and I am not required to make any further assessment.

The report requested was compiled by the MPS in their capacity as Coroner’s Officer solely for the purpose of the inquest proceedings.


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 at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Gill Brown
Information Manager

Posted by: Bridget Aug 23 2011, 12:35 PM
QUOTE (Bridget @ Aug 2 2011, 12:47 PM)
QUOTE
FOIA: Response time extended (Public Interest Test)

From:    gill.brown@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 2 Aug 2011 9:52 AM

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011070001137

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/07/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

    During the recent 7/7 Inquests no CCTV from the trains prior to the explosions was shown, nor was it even claimed to exist, despite it's existence as claimed by Rachel North in a discussion held in May 2006 between survivors and bereaved and the then Home Secretary, John Reid and a member of Counter Terrorism:    "The first question was from a man who lost his boyfriend at Russell   Square who wanted to know if there were CCTV images of the bombers    on the trains, and whether he could see the last minutes of his    loved one. The Counter Terrorism representative said that there    were, but they had not been released, as the post-bomb CCTV images    'were disturbing'. Dr. Reid promised to investigate whether images of the train before the bomb could be shown privately to the bereaved man. It sounded like the CCTV images were not of good quality."

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/05/meeting-new-home-secretary.html

CCTV from the train carriages would be able to show the presence of MSK and Tanweer for a considerable length of time on journeys away from King's Cross, and also the entry of three of the accused onto the carriages from the platforms at King's Cross. Could you please confirm:

1. Does CCTV from any of the the trains and/or carriages exist?

2. Does it show the presence of any of the 3 accused men, MSK, Tanweer and/or Lindsay?

3. Will the pre-explosion CCTV be made available?

4. Was the CCTV made available to the 7/7 Inquests and the counsel for the bereaved?


Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(B) provides that we can extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and
B) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(B) or (2)(B) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 30 (1) (a) and (B)
Section 38 (1)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 30 August 2011.

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 2401 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Gill Brown
Information Manager

We need to consider the best strategy to respond to this. Perhaps a FOI to the Home Office?
QUOTE
FOIA: Information Not Held

From:    gill.brown@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 23 Aug 2011 1:07 PM

Dear Mr Gaston

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011070001137

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 06/07/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

During the recent 7/7 Inquests no CCTV from the trains prior to the
explosions was shown, nor was it even claimed to exist, despite it's
existence as claimed by Rachel North in a discussion held in May 2006
between survivors and bereaved and the then Home Secretary, John Reid
and a member of Counter Terrorism:

    "The first question was from a man who lost his boyfriend at Russell Square who wanted to know if there were CCTV images of the bombers on the trains, and whether he could see the last minutes of his loved one. The Counter Terrorism representative said that there  were, but they had not been released, as the post-bomb CCTV images  'were disturbing'. Dr. Reid promised to investigate whether images of the train before the bomb could be shown privately to the bereaved man. It sounded like the CCTV images were not of good quality."

http://rachelnorthlondon.blogspot.com/2006/05/meeting-new-home-secretary.html

CCTV from the train carriages would be able to show the presence of MSK
and Tanweer for a considerable length of time on journeys away from
King's Cross, and also the entry of three of the accused onto the
carriages from the platforms at King's Cross.

Could you please confirm:

1. Does CCTV from any of the the trains and/or carriages exist?

2. Does it show the presence of any of the 3 accused men, MSK, Tanweer
and/or Lindsay?

3. Will the pre-explosion CCTV be made available?

4. Was the CCTV made available to the 7/7 Inquests and the counsel for
the bereaved?



DECISION
In relation to question 1 there is no CCTV footage from within the trains that exploded. As there is no CCTV then question 2 is irrelevant.

In relation to question 3 and 4, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested.


REASON FOR DECISION

Section 17 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
© states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.


Section 21 of the Act provides:

(1)        Information which is reasonably accessible to the application otherwise than under section 1 is exempt information…

(3)        For the purposes of subsection (1), information which is held by a public authority and does not fall within subsection (2)(b) is not to be regarded as reasonably accessible to the applicant merely because the information is available from the public authority itself on request, unless the information is made available in accordance with the authority’s publication scheme and any payment required is specified in, or determined in accordance with, the scheme.

The only footage that exists for any of the trains is the Circle Line train pulling into Liverpool Street station before leaving for Aldgate.  This footage has been used in the two Theseus criminal trials and the Inquest and is in the public domain and can be viewed via the following link to the Coroner’s Inquest website.

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/evidence/na-videos.htm


Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).


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 Gill Brown quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Gill Brown
Information Manager

Posted by: justthefacts Aug 23 2011, 07:17 PM
If there "were" CCTV images at the time the question was asked in May 2006, but now they don't "exist" in the Metropolitan police's possession where they were looked for, what could the logical explanation be? That they've been destroyed or placed beyond reach with the "security" services?


Posted by: Bridget Aug 23 2011, 08:55 PM
QUOTE (Bridget @ Jul 22 2011, 02:01 PM)
This is one we should take right up to the Information Commissioner if it is refused as the logs were mentioned in the Inquests and should be aduced into evidence:
QUOTE
CCTV viewing logs as mentioned during the 7/7 inquests

From:    karen.fox2@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Fri, 22 Jul 2011 2:39 PM

Dear Ms Dunne

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060003689

I write in connection with your request for information  which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign request the following information under the FOIA:

1. The CCTV viewing logs as mentioned by Ms Gallagher during the recent 7/7Inquests:

MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended: 11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th. page 65, line 15 on Transcript, 14 October 2010 -

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/14102010pm.htm 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 30 (a) (b)
Section 38 (1)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 22 August 2011


May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 02072304657 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
Information Manager

The exemptions quoted above are:
QUOTE
30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

    (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,

        (b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,
or

QUOTE
Section 38: Health And Safety

    (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to—

        (a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
        (b) endanger the safety of any individual.

    (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).

CODE
http://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php/Main_Page

The Met would have a hard time applying either of these exemptions imo to this request.

Met have been busy today with all these refusals:
QUOTE
FOIA: Reject - Fully Exempt

From:    gill.brown@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 23 Aug 2011 2:26 PM

Dear Ms Dunne

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060003689

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign request the following information under the FOIA:
1. The CCTV viewing logs as mentioned by Ms Gallagher during the recent 7/7 Inquests:
MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended: 11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

page 65, line 15 on Transcript, 14 October 2010 -

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/14102010pm.htm

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION


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
© states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 30 of the Act provides:

30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

(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,
        (b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct, or
        © any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.
(2) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if—
        (a) it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes of its functions relating to—
                (i) investigations falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b),
                (ii) criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,

Factors Favouring disclosure

The release of  information requested relates directly to the efficiency and effectiveness of the force or its officers.  In addition disclosure could assist individuals by raising awareness of issues which may be of relevance to them.

Factors against disclosure

The release of this information may impact on the current or future law enforcement role of the force.  Releasing this information would act as a deterrent to the public providing information to the force.  Also to release information about an investigation will invariably release personal details, law enforcement techniques and in the case of uncompleted cases may potentially damage the criminal justice process.


Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.  I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to that these reports.  The publication of technical details would be of interest and use to others planning similar campaigns and it would clearly not be in the public interest to publish any material that could be of assistance to them.


I am sorry that you were not contacted earlier to seek clarification of your request.  It has been interpreted as seeking a copy of the CCTV Viewing logs and answered accordingly.  If this is not correct please feel free to submit a revised question.

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 at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely
Gill Brown
Information Manager

Posted by: cmain Aug 26 2011, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (justthefacts @ Aug 23 2011, 07:17 PM)
If there "were" CCTV images at the time the question was asked in May 2006, but now they don't "exist" in the Metropolitan police's possession where they were looked for, what could the logical explanation be? That they've been destroyed or placed beyond reach with the "security" services?

That they never existed and either the "Counter Terrorism Officer" or "Rachel North" made it all up?

Posted by: justthefacts Aug 27 2011, 03:47 AM
Both possible, but if it was Rachel, why would she take the risk of another survivor or family member calling her out on it?

Posted by: Bridget Oct 12 2011, 10:33 AM
QUOTE (Bridget @ Aug 23 2011, 11:28 AM)
QUOTE (Bridget @ Jul 22 2011, 02:14 PM)
Ditto to my comments above:
QUOTE
Copy of the full Theseus report July 7 Inquest

From:    karen.fox2@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Fri, 22 Jul 2011 3:05

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060004264

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

    J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign request a copy of the full Theseus report - July 7 Inquest ref: INQ11410 - attributed to DCS Douglas McKenna on 3/03/2011:

16     Q. Although the nature and efficacy of the investigation
17     into the 7 July bombs is outside the scope of these
18     proceedings, have you been permitted to look at some of
19     the ancillary points that have arisen?
20    A. I have done, my Lady.
21     Q. All right. Well, can we just address some of them,
22     please? You've set them out in a helpful and detailed
23     report at INQ11410.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-02-28-03-04-week-19/7_july_inquests_2011-03-03_am-session.pdf


Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(B) provides that we can extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and
B) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(B) or (2)(B) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):
Section 30 (a) (B)
Section 38 (1)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 23 August 2011

May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 02072304657 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
Information Manager

I shall complain/appeal on the basis that it was quite arbitrary which pages were adduced and as the families of the 4 had no representation there was no opportunity to examine the report:
QUOTE
FOIA: Reject - Fully Exempt

From:    gill.brown@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 23 Aug 2011 11:43 AM

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060004264

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 28/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign request a copy of the full Theseus
report - July 7 Inquest ref: INQ11410 - attributed to DCS Douglas
McKenna on 3/03/2011:

16     Q. Although the nature and efficacy of the investigation
17     into the 7 July bombs is outside the scope of these
18     proceedings, have you been permitted to look at some of
19     the ancillary points that have arisen?
20    A. I have done, my Lady.
21     Q. All right. Well, can we just address some of them,
22     please? You've set them out in a helpful and detailed
23     report at INQ11410.

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-02-28-03-04-week-19/7_july_inquests_2011-03-03_am-session.pdf


DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 17 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
© states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 32 (1) Court records of the Act provides:

(1)Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it is held only by virtue of being contained in—

(a)any document filed with, or otherwise placed in the custody of, a court for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter,

(b)any document served upon, or by, a public authority for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter, or

©any document created by—

(i)a court, or

(ii)a member of the administrative staff of a court,

for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter.

This is an absolute exemption and I am not required to make any further assessment.

The report requested was compiled by the MPS in their capacity as Coroner’s Officer solely for the purpose of the inquest proceedings.


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 at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Gill Brown
Information Manager

QUOTE
Complaint Update

From:    sarah.strong@met.police.uk [Add]
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net


Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011090002962

Further to our letter of 23 September 2011, I have unfortunately been unable to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

    Original FOI case number 2011060004264


I hope to complete your review no later than 7 November 2011. Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact Sarah Strong on telephone number 020 7161 3604 or at the address at the top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely


Sarah Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

Posted by: Bridget Oct 12 2011, 10:36 AM
QUOTE (Bridget @ Aug 23 2011, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE (Bridget @ Jul 22 2011, 02:01 PM)
This is one we should take right up to the Information Commissioner if it is refused as the logs were mentioned in the Inquests and should be aduced into evidence:
QUOTE
CCTV viewing logs as mentioned during the 7/7 inquests

From:    karen.fox2@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Fri, 22 Jul 2011 2:39 PM

Dear Ms Dunne

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060003689

I write in connection with your request for information  which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

    J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign request the following information under the FOIA:

1. The CCTV viewing logs as mentioned by Ms Gallagher during the recent 7/7Inquests:

MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended: 11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th. page 65, line 15 on Transcript, 14 October 2010 -

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/14102010pm.htm 

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), we have 20 working days to respond to a request for information unless we are considering whether the information requested is covered by one of the 'qualified exemptions' (exemptions which must be tested against the public interest before deciding whether they apply to the information in question).

Where we are considering the public interest test against the application of relevant qualified exemptions, Section 17(2)(b) provides that we can extend the 20 day deadline.

Section 17(2) provides:

2) Where-
a) in relation to any request for information, a public authority is, as respects any information, relying on a claim-
i) that any provision of Part II which relates to the duty to confirm or deny and is not specified in section 2(3) is relevant to the request, or
ii) that the information is exempt information only by virtue of a provision not specified in section 2(3), and
b) at the time when the notice under subsection (1) is given to the applicant, the public authority (or, in a case falling within section 66(3) or (4), the responsible authority) has not yet reached a decision as to the application of subsection (1)(b) or (2)(b) of section 2,
the notice under subsection (1) must indicate that no decision as to the application of that provision has yet been reached and must contain an estimate of the date by which the authority expects that such a decision will have been reached.

I am sorry to inform you that we have not been able to complete our response to your request by the date originally stated, as we are currently considering whether 'qualified exemptions' apply to the information you have requested. As a result we will not be able to respond within 20 working days.

For your information we are considering the following exemption(s):

Section 30 (a) (b)
Section 38 (1)

I can now advise you that the amended date for a response is 22 August 2011


May I apologise for any inconvenience caused.

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 02072304657 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Karen Fox
Information Manager

The exemptions quoted above are:
QUOTE
30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

    (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,

        (b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,
or

QUOTE
Section 38: Health And Safety

    (1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to—

        (a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
        (b) endanger the safety of any individual.

    (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, have either of the effects mentioned in subsection (1).

CODE
http://foiwiki.com/foiwiki/index.php/Main_Page

The Met would have a hard time applying either of these exemptions imo to this request.

Met have been busy today with all these refusals:
QUOTE
FOIA: Reject - Fully Exempt

From:    gill.brown@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 23 Aug 2011 2:26 PM

Dear Ms Dunne

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060003689

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign request the following information under the FOIA:
1. The CCTV viewing logs as mentioned by Ms Gallagher during the recent 7/7 Inquests:
MS GALLAGHER: You say that you focused upon Luton station as a result of information received on 11 July. Is that right?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's correct, yes.
Q. In that document which I've made reference to, I think you have it before you, my Lady, the Anti-terrorist Branch SO13 record -- do you have that document before you?
A. No, I don't, no.
Q. Is it possible for a copy to be provided?
MR KEITH: You can have my copy. (Handed)
MS GALLAGHER: This is a record of an officer viewing CCTV. It seems to be by a DC Stephen Bain. Was he part of the same team?
A. Yes, he was, yes.
Q. If you just look in the box at the top, it's on the left, five boxes down, "Date viewing commenced: 10 July 2005, 20.00 hours" and "Date viewing ended: 11 July 2005, 23.30".
A. Yes.
Q. So is it possible that, in fact, that information was received on 10 July rather than 11 July, Inspector?
A. [DI Ewan Kindness] That's absolutely correct. It's an error. It should have been the 10th.

page 65, line 15 on Transcript, 14 October 2010 -

http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/14102010pm.htm

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

REASONS FOR DECISION


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
© states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 30 of the Act provides:

30 Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

(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,
        (b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct, or
        © any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.
(2) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if—
        (a) it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purposes of its functions relating to—
                (i) investigations falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b),
                (ii) criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct,

Factors Favouring disclosure

The release of  information requested relates directly to the efficiency and effectiveness of the force or its officers.  In addition disclosure could assist individuals by raising awareness of issues which may be of relevance to them.

Factors against disclosure

The release of this information may impact on the current or future law enforcement role of the force.  Releasing this information would act as a deterrent to the public providing information to the force.  Also to release information about an investigation will invariably release personal details, law enforcement techniques and in the case of uncompleted cases may potentially damage the criminal justice process.


Balancing Test
After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest.  I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to that these reports.  The publication of technical details would be of interest and use to others planning similar campaigns and it would clearly not be in the public interest to publish any material that could be of assistance to them.


I am sorry that you were not contacted earlier to seek clarification of your request.  It has been interpreted as seeking a copy of the CCTV Viewing logs and answered accordingly.  If this is not correct please feel free to submit a revised question.

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 at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely
Gill Brown
Information Manager

QUOTE
Complaint Acknowledgement

From:    sarah.strong@met.police.uk [Add]
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011090002950

Further to our letter of 23 September 2011, I have unfortunately been unable to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

    Original FOI case number 2011060003689


I hope to complete your review no later than 7 November 2011.
Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact Sarah Strong on telephone number 020 7161 3604 or at the address at the top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

Posted by: Bridget Nov 7 2011, 06:20 PM
^
QUOTE
Dear  Mr Dunne,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011090002950

Further to our letter of 12 October 2011, I have unfortunately been unable to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

    Original FOI case number 2011060003689


I hope to complete your review no later than 2 December 2011. Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact Sarah Strong on telephone number 020 7161 3604 or at the address at the top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

Posted by: Bridget Nov 8 2011, 06:25 PM
QUOTE
Dear J7
Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011090002962

Further to our letter dated 12th October 2011, I have unfortunately been unable to meet the response time provided to you in relation to:

    Original FOI case number 2011060004264


I hope to complete your review no later than 18th November 2011.  Should there be any unforseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as possible.

I apologise for the delay , and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact Mike Lyng on telephone number 0207 161 3605 or at the address at the top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
Quality and Assurance Advisor

Posted by: Bridget Nov 11 2011, 04:22 PM
Information Commissioner?
QUOTE
FOIA Complaints Decision

From:    mike.lyng@met.police.uk [Add]
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Fri, 11 Nov 2011 2:56 PM

Dear J7

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 20110900029624

Further to our letter of 12th October 2011, I am now able to provide a full response to your complaint dated 11th September 2011 concerning FoIA complaint pertaining to closed case 2011060004264. 

Original request (28th July 2011)

J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign request a copy of the full Theseus report - July 7 Inquest ref: INQ11410 - attributed to DCS Douglas McKenna on 3/03/2011:

http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/2011-02-28-03-04-week-19/7_july_inquests_2011-03-03_am-session.pdf


Request for review (11th September 2011)

I wish to complain at the refusal to release the report as requested in this FOI. The secretary to the 7/7 Inquests informed J7 that:  Dear Sirs, There are no plans to release any other documents as it is only those documents or parts of the documents that have been adduced in court that form the evidence in these proceedings.  However, once the Coroner's records have been transferred to a place of deposit, following the conclusion of the inquests, they become subject to the Freedom of Information Act, 2005.  Some information will be transferred to the National Archives within a few months but records provided to us for the purposes of disclosure by other organisations will be retained by them and Freedom of Information requests can be made directly to the organisation concerned.   

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has decided to uphold the original decision to engage section 32(1) Court Records and specify the subsection as being Section 32(1) (a).

In accordance with The Code of Practice (Freedom Of Information Act 2000, section 45), I would like to advise you that this complaint process provides a fair and thorough review of handling issues and of decisions taken pursuant to the Act, including decisions taken about where the public interest lies in respect of exempt information. This enables a fresh decision to be taken on a reconsideration of all the factors relevant to the points you have raised.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act and other references that are referred to in this letter.

Reasons for decision

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your FoIA review, I thought that it might assist you 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 Freedom of Information Act 2000 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 that public authority holds the requested information 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 original request for information within the provisions set out by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and have today decided that Sections 32(1) Court Records is engaged.  I therefore uphold Gill Brown's decision.  Although the review upholds the original MPS decision, in order to further explain the decision I have provided a supplementary explanation as to why this exemption was applied.

The review is guided by a previous Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) decision notice FS50353260 on a similar subject matter of Court Records where the Commissioners states 'information can only be withheld under section 32 if it solely held by the public authority by virtue of being in a court record and not elsewhere.  The first question, therefore, is whether the public authority holds the information in question only by virtue of it being contained in a document to which section 32 applies.'  This case can be viewed by found by way of the following link  http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fs_50353260.ashx

Does the information being requested fall within the exemption in section 32 of FOIA

Section 32(1) provides that:

(1)Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it is held only by virtue of being contained in-
(a) any document filed with, or otherwise placed in the custody of, a court for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter,
(b) any document served upon, or by, a public authority for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter, or
© any document created by-
(i)a court, or
(ii)a member of the administrative staff of a court,
for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter.

In addition Section 32(4) defines "court" includes any tribunal or body exercising the judicial power of the State and "proceedings in a particular cause or matter"  includes any inquest or post-mortem examination.

The ICO guidance on Information contained in court records states 'the information covered is that which is held "only by virtue" of being contained in documents which have been Filed with or otherwise placed in the custody of a court (or tribunal), or Served upon or by a public authority, for the purposes of court proceedings (including inquests and post mortem examinations), or Placed in the custody of a person conducting an inquiry or arbitration or the purposes of that inquiry or arbitration, or Created by a court or member of the administrative staff for the purposes of court proceedings, or Created by a person conducting an inquiry or arbitration for the purposes of that inquiry or arbitration.' This guidance also provides examples of records covered by the exemption including witness statements, statements of case (particulars of claim, defence, counterclaim, defence to counterclaim and reply).

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) manual of guidance also advises on information likely to be covered by this exemption namely 'anything generated by the court itself will attract this exemption in addition to anything produced by the police solely for court use.  Discovering the provenance and reasons for the existence of information is key to identifying whether this exemption may be engaged.'  In this regard the review takes note of the assistance provided to you in the refusal notice dated 23rd August 2011 which states 'the report requested was compiled by the MPS in their capacity as Coroner's Officer solely for the purpose of the inquest proceedings.' The review is therefore satisfied that the information requested falls within the exemption under section 32 court records.

The review takes note of your comment 'I wish to complain at the refusal to release the report as requested in this FOI.'  In this respect I would like to explain that section 32(1) provides class-based and absolute exemptions.  This means that if the information in question falls within any of the classes described in section 32(1)(a) to ©, it is exempt. There is no requirement to consider what harm, if any, may result through the disclosure of this information, nor any requirement to consider the balance of the public interest. As previously mentioned consideration of this exemption requires addressing only whether the information in question falls within any of the classes described in sections 32(1)(a)-©.

The review is also guided by the Information Tribunal [EA/2008/0087] which states 'There is some previous jurisprudence of the Tribunal in respect of the exemption under s. 32 of FOIA including: Szucs v IC (EA/2007/0075), Ministry of Justice v Information Commissioner (EA/2007/0120 & EA/2007/0121) and Mitchell v Information Commissioner (EA/2005/0002). The latter (which concerned transcripts of court proceedings) contains some helpful observations on the nature and scope of the s 32 exemption: "31 We remind ourselves that a court is not itself a "public authority" within s.3(1) (see Schedule 1) so that we are considering court records held by public authorities either as litigants, third parties subject to a court order or, as in the present case, interested parties.  Section 32(1) applies to three classes of court document. Paragraphs (a) and (b) seem to relate to documents filed or served by the parties or by a third party pursuant to an order of a court, eg, a summons requiring production of a document, either in civil or criminal proceedings. Paragraph © refers to documents created by a court or a member of the administrative staff of a court'

The Information Tribunal appeal can be found by way of this link http://www.informationtribunal.gov.uk/DBFiles/Decision/i305/BERR%20v%20IC%20&%20PBS%20(EA-2008-0087)%20Decision%2028-04-09.pdf

The review is therefore satisfied that the information being requested, namely Theseus report - July 7 Inquest ref: INQ11410 is held in a relevant document, and that document was filed with or otherwise placed in the custody of a court for the purpose of proceedings in a particular cause or matter and that this information is only held by the MPS by virtue of being contained in the court records. 

Whilst I appreciate this is not the response you would have wished to receive I hope the considerations provided in this review has explained why on this occasion the MPS has maintained its stance to engage section 32(1)(a) of FoIA.

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
© states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.

Section 32(1) Court Records provides

(1)Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it is held only by virtue of being contained in-
(a) any document filed with, or otherwise placed in the custody of, a court for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter,
(b) any document served upon, or by, a public authority for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter, or
© any document created by-
(i)a court, or
(ii)a member of the administrative staff of a court,
for the purposes of proceedings in a particular cause or matter.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/section/32

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 me on telephone number 0207 161 3605 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Mike Lyng
Quality and Assurance Advisor

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 and encouraged to discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request. 

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision letter.

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and assist with any problems.

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
PublicAccessOffice@met.police.uk

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.

Posted by: cmain Nov 11 2011, 07:57 PM
QUOTE
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) manual of guidance also advises on information likely to be covered by this exemption namely 'anything generated by the court itself will attract this exemption in addition to anything produced by the police solely for court use.  Discovering the provenance and reasons for the existence of information is key to identifying whether this exemption may be engaged.'  In this regard the review takes note of the assistance provided to you in the refusal notice dated 23rd August 2011 which states 'the report requested was compiled by the MPS in their capacity as Coroner's Officer solely for the purpose of the inquest proceedings.' The review is therefore satisfied that the information requested falls within the exemption under section 32 court records.


ACPO is notoriously not a public body but a private limited company. So why is their manual of guidance of any relevance? If J7 published a manual of guidance saying this material should be released, would they take any notice of that?

Posted by: Bridget Jan 8 2012, 11:49 AM
QUOTE (Bridget @ Nov 7 2011, 06:20 PM)
^
QUOTE
Dear  Mr Dunne,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011090002950

Further to our letter of 12 October 2011, I have unfortunately been unable to meet the response time originally provided to you in relation to:

    Original FOI case number 2011060003689


I hope to complete your review no later than 2 December 2011. Should there be any unforeseen delay, I will contact you and update you as soon as possible.

I apologise for the delay, and thank you for your patience.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact Sarah Strong on telephone number 020 7161 3604 or at the address at the top of the letter quoting the reference number above.

Thank you for your interest in the MPS.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

QUOTE
FOIA Complaints Decision

From:    sarah.strong@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:25 AM

Dear Mr Dunne,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011090002950

Further to our letter of 7 November 2011, I am now able to provide a response to your complaint dated 11 September 2011 concerning:

    Original FOI case number 2011060003689.


Original request (dated 27/6/11)

Request for the CCTV viewing logs mentioned by Ms Gallagher during the 7/7 Inquest

DECISION

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has completed its review and has decided to:

    Set aside the original decision


REASON FOR DECISION

I would first like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay to your internal review decision and thank you for your patience.

The original decision provided to you confirmed the information you sought was held but exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)©.

On careful review, I can confirm that the information you have requested is in fact no longer held by the MPS and was not held by the MPS at the time your request was received.

The MPS can therefore confirm that the information you have requested is not held.

The original viewing log referred to in your request was, at the request of LJ Hallett, submitted to the Inquests during the hearing. The MPS has liaised with a number of individuals who dealt with the original log and it is believed that the log was submitted to the Inquests and not returned.  Unfortunately a copy was not retained.  The original viewing log may still be retained by the Coroner.

I do apologise for any confusion caused by the original response which was provided in error.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to contact the Information Commissioner with your complaint.

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on 020 7161 3604 or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Strong
FOIA Policy Research & Complaints Officer

Posted by: cmain Jan 9 2012, 08:33 PM
QUOTE
From:    gill.brown@met.police.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 23 Aug 2011 2:26 PM


Dear Ms Dunne

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011060003689

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 27/06/2011.  I note you seek access to the following information:

J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign request the following information under the FOIA:
1. The CCTV viewing logs as mentioned by Ms Gallagher during the recent 7/7 Inquests:

...

DECISION

Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).


Information Commissioner?

Posted by: Bridget Jan 24 2012, 10:49 AM
QUOTE
Complaint against the Metropolitan Police Service[Ref. FS50430180]

From:    casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 24 Jan 2012 9:49 AM

24 January 2012

Case Reference Number FS50430180

Dear J7

I have been allocated the above complaint to investigate. This relates to a request that you made to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) on 28 June 2011 for a full copy of its Theseus Report.

The complaints handling process

Where possible, the Information Commissioner aims to resolve complaints informally. If we believe a public authority should take further action we will ask it to do so. Similarly, if we decide a public authority has dealt with your request properly, and we do not believe that further action is required, we will give you the opportunity to withdraw your complaint.

I will ask the MPS to revisit your freedom of information request, now that we are involved, and consider if there is anything it can do to resolve matters quickly. If there is, I will contact you again.

If not, I will ask it to explain the way it handled your request and will carefully consider its reply.

If we are not able to resolve the case informally, the Information Commissioner will explain his decision in a ‘decision notice’. Where he decides that a request has not been handled properly, he may specify the steps he considers necessary to resolve the situation in the notice. This can include requiring a public authority to release information it has previously withheld.

If we write a decision notice in this case, we will send a copy to you and the public authority. We will also put a copy on our website with your details removed. If you disagree with our decision, you have a legal right of appeal to the Information Tribunal.

The scope of my investigation

The focus of my investigation will be to determine whether or not the MPS is able to rely on the exemption at section 32(1) to withhold the Theseus Report.

It usually takes about four months to complete an investigation and I will update you on my progress. However, if you have any queries, you can email me or call me on 01625 xxxxx. Please ensure that you quote the above case reference number in any correspondence.

Please will you confirm receipt of this email and also that you still wish me to proceed with my investigation

Regards
Carolyn Howes
Senior Case Officer

____________________________________________________________________


The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Posted by: cmain Feb 9 2012, 09:49 PM
Perhaps we could suggest to the Met that they look more carefully for the "missing" viewing log, based upon http://z13.invisionfree.com/julyseventh/index.php?showtopic=1713&st=29.

Posted by: Bridget Jul 5 2012, 04:52 PM
QUOTE (Bridget @ Jan 24 2012, 10:49 AM)
QUOTE
Complaint against the Metropolitan Police Service[Ref. FS50430180]

From:    casework@ico.gsi.gov.uk
To:    julyseventh@fastmail.net
Date:    Tue, 24 Jan 2012 9:49 AM

24 January 2012

Case Reference Number FS50430180

Dear J7

I have been allocated the above complaint to investigate. This relates to a request that you made to the Metropolitan Police Service (the “MPS”) on 28 June 2011 for a full copy of its Theseus Report.

The complaints handling process

Where possible, the Information Commissioner aims to resolve complaints informally. If we believe a public authority should take further action we will ask it to do so. Similarly, if we decide a public authority has dealt with your request properly, and we do not believe that further action is required, we will give you the opportunity to withdraw your complaint.

I will ask the MPS to revisit your freedom of information request, now that we are involved, and consider if there is anything it can do to resolve matters quickly. If there is, I will contact you again.

If not, I will ask it to explain the way it handled your request and will carefully consider its reply.

If we are not able to resolve the case informally, the Information Commissioner will explain his decision in a ‘decision notice’. Where he decides that a request has not been handled properly, he may specify the steps he considers necessary to resolve the situation in the notice. This can include requiring a public authority to release information it has previously withheld.

If we write a decision notice in this case, we will send a copy to you and the public authority. We will also put a copy on our website with your details removed. If you disagree with our decision, you have a legal right of appeal to the Information Tribunal.

The scope of my investigation

The focus of my investigation will be to determine whether or not the MPS is able to rely on the exemption at section 32(1) to withhold the Theseus Report.

It usually takes about four months to complete an investigation and I will update you on my progress. However, if you have any queries, you can email me or call me on 01625 xxxxx. Please ensure that you quote the above case reference number in any correspondence.

Please will you confirm receipt of this email and also that you still wish me to proceed with my investigation

Regards
Carolyn Howes
Senior Case Officer

____________________________________________________________________


The ICO’s mission is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.

If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use. Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you write or forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended. You should perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________

Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113 Fax: 01625 524 510 Web: www.ico.gov.uk

Sorry, forgot to post this:
QUOTE
Reference: FS50430180
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA)
Decision notice
Date: 23 April 2012
Public Authority: The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service
Address: New Scotland Yard
Broadway
London
SW1H 0BG

Decision (including any steps)

1. The complainant has requested a copy of the Theseus Report (the “Report”), which relates to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005. The Information Commissioner finds that the Report is a court record and that it was properly withheld under the absolute exemption at section 32(1)(a). The Commissioner found that the public authority made procedural breaches in providing a late response. The Information Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.


http://www.ico.gov.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2012/fs_50430180.ashx

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)