Please sign the J7 RELEASE THE EVIDENCE Petition


Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
InvisionFree - Free Forum Hosting
Welcome to the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Name:   Password:

SSL Search:  

Forum Rules Inquest Transcripts

| Inquest transcripts reproduced courtesy of: http://www.independent.gov.uk/7julyinquests/ | PDF transcripts are here: http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-inquest-transcripts/ |

Pages: (4) [1] 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post )

 FOIs: Information released during the Inquests
Bridget
Posted: Jun 28 2011, 01:10 PM





Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 15,265
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05



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/he.../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/Resp...02011-00236.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/he..._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/Bedfordsh...ents_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."

J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog: 7/7 Inquests: Fiat Brava Foxtrot Tango
Top
Bridget
Posted: Jul 14 2011, 02:28 PM





Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 15,265
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05



Following on from this blog post 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/ay...uation_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


This post has been edited by Bridget on Jul 14 2011, 03:26 PM
Top
Bridget
Posted: Jul 22 2011, 02:01 PM





Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 15,265
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05



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/he.../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.
Top
Bridget
Posted: Jul 22 2011, 02:14 PM





Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 15,265
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05



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-tr..._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
Top
brian123
Posted: Jul 24 2011, 04:26 PM





Group: Members
Posts: 197
Member No.: 1,563
Joined: 1-April 08



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
Top
Bridget
Posted: Aug 2 2011, 12:47 PM





Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 15,265
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05



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...-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
Top
Bridget
Posted: Aug 23 2011, 11:28 AM





Group: J7 Admins
Posts: 15,265
Member No.: 2
Joined: 26-November 05



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-tr..._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-tr..._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
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you

Topic OptionsPages: (4) [1] 2 3 ... Last »



Hosted for free by InvisionFree* (Terms of Use: Updated 2/10/2010) | Powered by Invision Power Board v1.3 Final © 2003 IPS, Inc.
Page creation time: 0.2000 seconds | Archive
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike2.5 License.
Comments on this forum do not necessarily represent the views of the July 7th Truth Campaign, the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum, or even the position of their author. J7, the July Seventh Truth Campaign, the July 7th People's Independent Inquiry Forum, nor its administrators or contributors are liable for any of the forum content. Any and all information is reproduced on a 'fair use' basis which allows reproduction of material for research and study purposes, criticism and news reporting.