The purpose of this site is for information and a record of Gerry McCann's Blog Archives. As most people will appreciate GM deleted all past blogs from the official website. Hopefully this Archive will be helpful to anyone who is interested in Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann. Many Thanks, Pamalam

Note: This site does not belong to the McCanns. It belongs to Pamalam. If you wish to contact the McCanns directly, please use the contact/email details campaign@findmadeleine.com    

A Freedom of Expression foray: Attachment 04
By Albert Moisiu Dec 2009

HOMEPAGE  Madeleine Beth McCann A Mystery Story ASSORTED LINKS
ALBYM GRAPHIC DESIGN Appendix 4 of A Freedom of Expression foray PDF FILE: A Freedom of Expression

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 103
7


-----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

TO HELP KEEP THIS SITE ON LINE PLEASE CONSIDER

Site Policy Contact details Sitemap Website created by © Pamalam