Appendix 04 |
Complaint to
the Information Commissioner's Office. |
In summary: |
- 31 January 2009: Following a
protracted FOI request process with the Home
Office, an FOI review request was submitted
to the Home Office review address (Appendix
2; three pages)
- 09 February 2009: an
acknowledgement was received from a Mr S K
which started an e-mail stream spanning that
date through to 2 July 2009 (Appendix 1;
five pages). In that acknowledgement a
response date of 30 March was indicated.
- 01 April 2009: no response having
been received a reminder was sent to Mr K.
- 03 April 2009: A Mr O L, claiming
to be Mr K's line manager, acknowledged the
failure to respond and assured prompt
action.
- 04 April 2009: I acknowledged the
above note from Mr L.
- 30 April 2009: Mr L claimed the
review had been completed but required a
further short period of time to clarify some
minor matters.
- 04 June 2009: Still having received
no response during the whole of May 2009 a
further reminder was sent to Mr L – no
acknowledgement to this was received.
- 17 June 2009: Still having received
no response a further reminder was sent to
Mr L – no acknowledgement to this was
received.
- 02 July 2008: Still having received
no response a further reminder was sent to
Mr L stating that despite my patience in
this matter time had run out.
|
Complaint |
I wish to receive a response to the
submitted review request.
The original response date was 30 March 2009
and despite ongoing correspondence no
official response has been received by 02
July 2009.
It is my sincere hope that Messrs
K and L are real people and not some
Internet fabrication.
Albert Moisiu. |
Appendix 1 (of
ICO complaint) |
Re: Fredom of Information - Internal Review
(ref 10041)
Thursday, July 2, 2009 2:33 PM
From Albert Moisiu Thu Jul 2 05:33:07 2009
Received: from [x.x.x.x] by [mailserver] via
HTTP; Thu, 02 Jul 2009 05:33:07 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 05:33:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Moisiu <x@x>
Subject: Re: Fredom of Information -
Internal Review (ref 10041)
To: "L O (IMS)" <O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="0-1985901703-1246537987=:77856"
Content-Length: 171105
Mr L, another two weeks have come and gone;
indeed another entire calendar month since
your assurances that all is well - and not
one response, not even another 'please wait'
note.I am a patient person but time has run
out.
Kind regards.
Albert Moisiu.
--- On Wed, 6/17/09, Albert Moisiu <x@x>
wrote:
From: Albert Moisiu <x@x>
Subject: Re: Fredom of Information -
Internal Review (ref 10041)
To: "L O (IMS)" <O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 6:44 AM
Mr L.
I still await your response.
Kind regards.
Albert Moisiu.
--- On Thu, 6/4/09, Albert Moisiu <x@x>
wrote:
From: Albert Moisiu <x@x>
Subject: Re: Fredom of Information -
Internal Review (ref 10041)
To: "L O (IMS)" <O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2009, 5:29 AM
Mr L.
In spite of your assurances below another
full calendar month has passed.
Do you have a response?
Kind regards.
Albert Moisiu
--- On Thu, 4/30/09, L O (IMS) <O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
wrote:
From: L O (IMS) <O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: Fredom of Information - Internal
Review (ref 10041)
To: x@x
Date: Thursday, April 30, 2009, 5:56 PM
Dear Mr
Moisiu
Thank you for your patience in relation to
this matter. I have now been sent the report
into the handling of this FOI request, but
there are just a couple of issues in
relation to it that I am in the process of
clarifying before I approve the
recommendations within it. We cannot
therefore send the final response to you
today but will do so very shortly. I do not
expect these issues to take long to resolve
at all. I am sorry if this inconveniences
you, but hope that you will appreciate that
my actions are intended solely to ensure the
Home Office’s proper handling of FOI
requests.
I am
as ever happy to discuss this matter with
you should you wish.
Yours sincerely,
O L
Information Access Team
Information Management Service | Shared
Services Directorate | Home Office | 4th
Floor | Seacole Building
| 2 Marsham Street | London | SW1P 4DF
Tel: 020 7035 1037
-----Original Message-----
From: Albert Moisiu [mailto:x@x]
Sent: 04 April 2009 5:28 AM
To: L O (IMS)
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information -
request for an internal review
Thank you for your reply, Mr L.
I look forward to receiving the review
response to be provided within this month,
April 2009.
I do hope that Mr K's sudden absence does
not bode ill for him or his family.
I note that you responded to my reminder
dated 1 April. Please ignore, therefore, my
second reminder sent on 3 April.
Kind
regards.
Albert Moisiu.
--- On Fri, 4/3/09, L O (IMS) <O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
wrote:
From: L O (IMS) <O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Freedom of Information -
request for an internal review
To: x@x
Date: Friday, April 3, 2009, 6:04 PM
Dear Mr Moisiu
Thank you for your email. I am writing in my
capacity as S K’s line manager.
I am sorry that we have not yet been able to
respond to your internal review request.
Unfortunately S K had to be away from the
office due to unforeseen circumstances over
recent weeks; and although the case was
reallocated to another caseworker in his
absence that person was, due to their
existing workload, unable to bring this case
to a conclusion or make significant further
progress with it. I apologise for this, but
would like to reassure you that this case is
now
being worked on again and is being treated
as a priority. You will receive a reply this
month, and please do not hesitate to contact
me should you have any further concerns
about this issue.
Yours sincerely
O L
Information Access Team
Information Management Service | Shared
Services Directorate | Home Office | 4th
Floor | Seacole Building
| 2 Marsham Street | London | SW1P 4DF
Tel: 020 7035 1037
-----Original
Message-----
From: Albert Moisiu [mailto:x@x]
Sent: 01 April 2009 6:39 PM
To: Information Access
Subject: Re: Freedom of Information -
request for an internal review
Dear Mr K,
Today is 1 April 2009 and I have yet to
receive your response after 40 days of
internal review as per your attached
message.
Kindly oblige. Thank you.
Yours faithfully
Albert Moisiu.
-- On Mon, 2/9/09,
Information Access <Info.Access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
wrote:
From: Information Access <Info.Access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: Freedom of Information - request
for an internal review
To: x@x
Date: Monday, February 9, 2009, 10:27 AM
Dear Mr Moisiu
Thank you for your e-mail message of 31
January in which you ask for an internal
review to be carried out into the reply you
received to a Freedom of Information request
from the Home Office. I can confirm that I
was not involved in the consideration of
your original request.
We have a target of 40 working days to reply
to requests for internal reviews and I
therefore hope to be able to send you a
reply no later than 30 March.
Yours sincerely
S K
Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Financial and Commercial Group
4th Floor, Seacole Building (NE)
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
**********************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it
are private and intended
solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error
please return it to the address
it came from telling them it is not for you
and then delete it from your system.
This email message has been swept for
computer viruses.
**********************************************************
The
original of this email was scanned for
viruses by the Government Secure Intranet
virus scanning service supplied by
Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this email
was certified virus free.Communications via
the GSi may be automatically logged,
monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government
Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied
by Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM
Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In case of
problems, please call your organisation’s IT
Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it
are private and intended
solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error
please return it to the address
it came from telling them it is not for you
and then delete it from your system.
This email message has been swept for
computer viruses.
************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for
viruses by the Government Secure Intranet
virus scanning service supplied by
Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this email
was certified virus free.Communications via
the GSi may be automatically logged,
monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes.This email was received from the
INTERNET and scanned by the Government
Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied
by Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM
Certificate Number 2007/11/0032.) In case of
problems, please call your organisations IT
Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be
automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it
are private and intended
solely for the use of the individual or
entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error
please return it to the address
it came from telling them it is not for you
and then delete it from your system.
This email message has been swept for
computer viruses.
************************************************************
The original of this email was scanned for
viruses by the Government Secure Intranet
virus scanning service supplied by
Cable&Wireless in partnership with
MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number
2007/11/0032.) On leaving the GSi this email
was certified virus free.Communications via
the GSi may be automatically logged,
monitored and/or recorded for legal
purposes. |
|
Appendix 2
(of ICO complaint) |
Complaint: HO ref: MLI07/210/2104 – FOI
10041; CR10041
Saturday, January 31, 2009 7:28 PM
From: "Albert Moisiu" <x@x>
To: info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Cc:
L.S2@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
email:
info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
To whom it may concern.
Home Office reference: MLI07/210/2104 – FOI
10041; CR10041
Home Office MATERIAL RELATING TO MADELEINE
McCANN
The Home Office of the United Kingdom
recently released a standard form letter in
response to requests made under the Freedom
of Information Act concerning aspects of the
investigation into the disappearance of
Madeleine Beth McCann.
Errors reflected in the section entitled
'Public Interest Considerations'
notwithstanding, it is claimed, and I quote
two sentences from the first paragraph of
the section entitled 'Harm and prejudice':
"The investigation into the disappearance of
Madeleine McCann is still ongoing.", and
"Leicestershire Constabulary are the lead
force in the UK dealing with this
investigation but the principle [sic]
investigation agency is Policia Judiciara
(PJ) in Portugal."
It is commonly known that the case file of
the Polícia Judiciára (PJ) was handed over
to the judicial authorities in Portugal,
namely the Ministério Público (MP), headed
by the Procurator-General of the Republic
who announced publicly on the Ministry's
official website on 21 July 2008:
"Por
despacho com data de hoje (21.07.2008)
proferido pelos dois magistrados do
Ministério Público
competentes para o caso, foi determinado o
arquivamento do inquérito relativo ao
desaparecimento da menor
Madeleine McCann, por não se terem obtido
provas da prática de qualquer crime por
parte dos arguidos.
II
Cessa assim a condição de arguido de Robert
James Queriol Evelegh Murat, Gerald Patrick
McCann e Kate
Marie Healy, declarando-se extintas as
medidas de coacção impostas aos mesmos.
III
Poderão ter lugar a reclamação hierárquica,
o pedido de abertura de instrução ou a
reabertura do inquérito,
requeridos por quem tiver legitimidade para
tal.
IV
O inquérito poderá vir a ser reaberto por
iniciativa do Ministério Público ou a
requerimento de algum
interessado se surgirem novos elementos de
prova que originem diligências sérias,
pertinentes e
consequentes.
V
Decorridos que sejam os prazos legais, o
processo poderá ser consultado por qualquer
pessoa que nisso
revele interesse legítimo, respeitados que
sejam o formalismo e limites impostos por
lei."
In the first paragraph it is stated
explicitly "foi
determinado o arquivamento do inquérito
relativo ao desaparecimento da menor
Madeleine McCann", in English:
"the inquiry relating to the disappearance
of the minor Madeleine McCann was archived"
with effect from the date of his officially
published instruction
('despacho'),
namely, 21 July 2008.
Paragraph IV of the above despacho states,
in English, "the inquiry can be re-opened by
the Ministério Público or the request of an
interested party should new evidence come to
light that would give rise to the need for
serious, relevant and consequential police
work."
The consequence of these two official
pronouncements is, therefore, that, contrary
to the status implied by the Home Office,
the investigation in Portugal is not
ongoing.
With that principal investigation being in
legal abeyance pending the receipt of new
evidence, any and all evidence held by the
Leicestershire Constabulary acquired during
their support role in that principal
investigation should have been passed to the
judicial authorities in Portugal. Failure to
have done this might be construed to be
obstruction of justice.
Further, any documented evidence in that
principal investigation that has been
retained by the Leicestershire Constabulary
belongs to the judicial authorities in
Portugal and, therefore, should be subject
to the same legal provisions that apply to
the documented evidence held in Portugal,
specifically, as stated in paragraph V of
the above despacho, it should be made
available for consultation by any person,
subject to the formalities and limits
imposed by the law (in Portugal), who can
show a legitimate interest in the documents
of the case file.
Among other things, Articles in the
Portuguese Penal Process Code stipulate
that,
- at 86(1), a criminal case is public,
subject to restrictions imposed by
(Portuguese) law;
- at 86(6), the publication of a criminal
case implies the right of the general public
to hear, the right of the media to publish,
and the right of anyone having legal cause
to obtain copies, extracts or certificates
of documents pertaining to the case;
- at 88, the media are expressly permitted,
within the limits of the (Portuguese) law,
to publish information about the case. There
is no mention in that article of any
limitation prescribed at the whim of a
foreign government;
- at 90(2), other persons are permitted,
without prohibition, to read details of the
case published through the media;
On 4
August 2008 access to the case file was
granted to the 'media' by the Portuguese
authorities. In compliance with Portuguese
law certain documents had been withheld by
the Portuguese authorities for reasons
recorded in the file.
It should be noted that the term 'media'
(comunicação
social) above is not
limited solely to organs of the Portuguese
press but, rather, it encompasses every
organ of communication to people in general
in every country throughout the world.
Hence, the 'media' in general, anywhere in
the world, is deemed to have a legitimate
interest in the documents contained in the
case file.
It is, therefore, very much in the Public
Interest to know whether any organ of the
Government of the United Kingdom has placed
any restriction or limitation on the
reporting of any facet of this case, save
for those already specifically excluded by
Portuguese law, by any or all media
organisations in the United Kingdom.
In considering this request, read together
with the response already received from the
Home Office, I submit that:
- Section 27 of the Freedom of Information
Act as an exception has no bearing on this
question other than as an attempt by the
Government of the United Kingdom to avoid
embarrassment, which is not a valid
foundation for exception;
- Section 38 of the above Act as an
exception has no foundation because the
condition of the missing child, whatever
that might be, cannot be affected by the
disclosure of the existence or otherwise of
a 'gag' on the British media;
- Section 31 of the above Act has no
foundation due to the fact that, as
demonstrated above, the principal
investigation in Portugal is no longer
ongoing.
It is made clear here that should there be,
outside the principal case, one or more
investigations into the disappearance of
Madeleine Beth McCann mounted by or under
any British authority alone, then this
request does NOT seek to know any
information about that, or those,
investigations. This request is focused
entirely
upon material pertaining solely to the
principal investigation.
I reiterate the original request submitted
on 11 August 2008:
This is a request for information, namely
for any and all records or documents or
extracts thereof reporting or evidencing
that at any time on or after 4 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 and/or over any
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, or persons, 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.
It seeks further:
(a) the identity, or identities, of any and
all the persons by whom,
(b) the date and time at which, and
(c) the means of communication through
which, any such limitation or restriction or
injunction or moratorium referred to above
was requested, instructed and/or obtained.
For the purposes of this complaint, and due
to the elapse of time during which certain
information has become public knowledge, I
will reduce the request to its simplest form
in the hope of a simple, one-word response –
a
Yes, or a No:
Has any organisation in the British media
been restricted by any organ of the British
Government from freely and fairly disclosing
anything pertaining to the principal
investigation as documented in the case file
released by the Portuguese authorities on 4
August 2008?
Prevarication in the form of a mere
re-issuance of the standard form letter
already received will be taken to be an
affirmative response.
Yours faithfully
Albert Moisiu |
|
|
|