|
Organised & International Crime Directorate
5thFloor Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street,
London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard +44 (0) 870 0001585 Fax +44 (0)
207-035-6985 Direct Line +44 (0) 207 035
1275
E-mail L.S2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
www.homeoffice.gov.uk |
|
|
Mr Albert Moisiu
Portugal |
|
Our ref: MLI07/210/2104 – FOI 10041
Date: 28th January 2009 |
Dear Mr Moisiu,
RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
HOME OFFICE MATERIAL RELATING TO MADELEINE
MCCANN
I am writing further to my correspondence on
the 16th December 2008. We are now in a
position to offer a full reply to your
request. I would like to apologise for the
length of time it has taken to respond to
your request. This delay has been due to
giving full and due consideration to the
public interest test together with the
necessity to consult with other agencies.
It is noted that your request was
to essentially seek information for any and
all records or extracts thereof reporting or
evidencing that at any time on or after 4th
May 2007 any form of limitation or
restriction or injunction or moratorium over
the free and fair and unfettered disclosure
of any aspect whatsoever of, or any detail
whatsoever of, the inquiry into the
disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann. The
request was also seeking information
pertaining to any persons directly
associated with that disappearance and/or
directly associated with the Inquiry, was
requested, instructed and/or obtained by any
person(s) whether employed at any level
within or providing any service within the
Home Office or any of its ancillary
operations, including, but not limited to,
the Central Office of Information and the
identities of all persons the dates and the
means of communication through which such
limitation or restriction was obtained.
Your request for information has been
considered under the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 (the Act) and we are now able to
provide you with a substantive response to
your request.
Section 1 of the Act places two duties on
public authorities when handling requests.
The first of these duties, provided at
s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the
information requested is actually held by
that authority. The second duty is for that
information to be disclosed where it has
been confirmed that it exists. This is
provided under s1(1)(b).
The Home Office can neither confirm nor deny
that we hold information relevant to your
request as our duty under s1(1)(a) does not
apply by virtue of the following provisions
of the Act:
• Section 27(4) – prejudice to International
Relations;
• Section 31(3) – prejudice to Law
Enforcement activities; and
• Section 38(2) – endangering Health &
Safety.
This letter therefore also serves as a
refusal notice under s17(1) of the Act.
Furthermore, the Home Office will not
comment on any of the information contained
in Goncal Amaral’s book, ‘A Verdade da
Mentira’ as it would potentially undermine
ongoing investigations.
There are a number of sensitivities relevant
to your request, given that Madeleine McCann
is still missing and the investigation is
still ongoing. Confirming or denying whether
any information is held could undermine the
investigation, prejudice international
relations and could endanger the health and
safety of members of the
public.
We have considered public interest
considerations in making our decision and we
have attached these to this letter. We
believe that, at this time, the public
interest strongly favours neither confirming
nor denying that the information you have
requested is or is not held by the Home
Office.
This response should not be taken as
conclusive evidence that the information you
have requested either does or does not
exist.
If you are dissatisfied with this response
you may request an independent internal
review of our handling of your request by
submitting your complaint within two months
to the below address quoting reference
CR10041
Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Or email:
info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
During the independent review the
department’s handling of your information
request will be reassessed by an official
that was not involved in providing you with
this response. Should you remain
dissatisfied after this internal review, you
will have a right of complaint to the
Information Commissioner as established by
section
50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
I realise that you may be disappointed with
this response. However we have considered
your request with great care, and the Home
Office always seeks to provide as much
information as it is able to.
Thank you
for your interest in the Home Office.
Yours sincerely
L S
Team Leader
UK Central Authority
|
| |
| |
|
Public
Interest Considerations |
s.17 – Refusal of request
(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
section1(1), give
the applicant a notice which -
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be
apparent) why the exemption applies.
s.27 – International Relations
(1) Information is exempt information if its
disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice,
(a) relations between the United Kingdom and
any other state,
(b) relations between the United Kingdom and
any international organisation or
international court
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not
arise if, or to the extent that, compliance
with section 1(1)(a) –
(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice
any of the matters mentioned in subsection
(1)
s.31 – Law Enforcement
(1) Information which is not exempt
information by virtue of section 30 is
exempt information if its
disclosure under this Act would, or would be
likely to, prejudice-
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of
offenders,
(c) the administration of justice,
(4) 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, prejudice any
of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)
s.38 – Health & 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.
(4) 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, prejudice any of the matters
mentioned in subsection (1)
Harm and prejudice
The investigation into the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann is still ongoing. There are
significant unknowns in relation to her
disappearance. Leicestershire Constabulary
are the lead force in the UK dealing with
this investigation but the principle
investigation agency is Policia Judiciara
(PJ) in Portugal. We believe
that significant harm to the investigation
could result from either confirming or
denying that we hold the information you
have asked for.
Should this investigation lead to a
prosecution, saying whether or not this
information is or is not held by the Home
Office would risk undermining the human
rights of any suspect to a fair trial and
the rights of a victim, particularly if the
prosecution would fail due to such an
announcement.
If the Home Office was to either confirm or
deny that it did or did not hold any
information that was gathered in the course
of this investigation, it might risk
compromising the conduct of this
investigation. This could ultimately
prejudice the administration of justice. In
any event, to confirm or deny that any such
information that was or was not obtained in
the course of a criminal investigation,
either voluntarily or through compulsory
powers, ought not to be generally disclosed,
save as far as it is necessary for the
purposes of establishing or
defending rights in litigation.
There is consequently a strong public
interest in ensuring that evidence is not
contaminated for any future trial. In
addition there is a strong public interest
to preserve relations with the Policia
Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal whilst Madeleine
remains missing.
Two of the Home Office’s objectives are to
support the efficient and effective delivery
of justice, and to lead visible, responsive
and accountable policing. The manner in
which the Home Office works to support the
Police Service as a whole is one of our core
business functions.
If the Home Office prejudiced such a
high-profile and sensitive investigation by
confirming or denying that we either do or
do not hold any of the information that you
have requested, we would be seen as working
against the efforts of both UK and
Portuguese policing authorities, undermining
their determined efforts to locate Madeline
McCann and her assailants. This would not be
in the best interests of the public..
Any prejudicial effects to these ongoing
investigations could jeopardise the health &
safety, of Madeline McCann, in that it might
significantly affect the chances of her
being found. There is no actual public
interest served in releasing information
that may jeopardise the health & safety of
any individual.
There is a strong public interest in the UK
maintaining the arrangements it currently
enjoys with other States in matters of
judicial and mutual legal cooperation in
criminal and other matters. Any act that
would prejudice this investigation may
discourage other States with complying with
reasonable requests issued by the UK or from
pursuing legitimate investigations in the UK
for fear that the product of such requests
or investigations may be disclosed to
private citizens. |
|
|
 |
|
