Post by Joe K on May 20, 2014 8:49:30 GMT
This is the pdf text of a response by Gloucestershire constabulary to a Freedom of Information request by Shona Scott.
They take the view that she is being 'vexatious' in making 121 requests to public authorities since 2013. I can see how they might think this, but as large as the figure is, I can also see how many people could see FoI requests as the only way to glean information from the 'powers that be', when they use bureacracy to withhold it in most other circumstances.
So, if they are going to start refusing Shona Scott's requests, as they have done in this case, I hope she avails herself of more public ways of pursuing answers. The validity of her cause can be judged by the public then, not police officers with a motivation for concealment.
---------------------------------
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Operation Shogun'.
Dear Ms Scott
Gloucestershire Constabulary Freedom of Information request 2014.5090
On the 15/01/2014 you sent an enquiry regarding the response to FOI Request 2014.5090 asking the
following:
Thank you for the response and information which was useful.
1. May I ask again whether any of this informationis on HOLMES and if so filed under what
categories or headings?
I note your comments
"Under the provisions of the Act an authority must process a request in writing from a named applicant
under the terms and conditions of the legislation. Whilst giving maximum support to individuals
genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the Commissioner's general approach will be
sympathetic towards authorities where requests can be characterised as being part of a campaign.
Therefore with regard to this request we are including a warning under Section 14(1) (Vexatious
Request) of the Freedom of Information Act that any future requests may attract this exemption "
Under s 16 please could you state
2. Where this guidance is from the commissioner?
3. What your definition of campaign is?
4. Why you think this request might be part of a campaign?
5. Did you receive communication from outside Gloucester Constabulary with regard to this?
In response to your enquiry:
The Freedom of Information Act is a piece of legislation designed to give the public access to
information held by public authorities. It exists to make the decisions of those authorities transparent
and to keep the populace better informed regarding matters which affect them. It is not designed as a
tool to be used to gather information in order to build a pattern of information relating to historic child
abuse (mosaic approach). Child abuse is an extremely emotive subject area which is regularly subject
of media scrutiny and public debate and as such a lot of information is already in the public domain
relating to the operations the applicant has submitted FOI requests on.
The Police Service attracts a large volume of requests which place huge pressures on small teams of
individuals charged with ensuring lawful compliance. Common sense dictates that we have to use
those resources wisely, and principles have been established within the judicial framework of the
legislation to protect authorities when requests are a burden on its staff, have no serious purpose or
value or harass and/or distress staff. It is vital that the motives of the requester are taken into account
when considering these issues.
Whatdotheyknow.com website identifies that you have submitted a total of 121 requests to public
authorities since 2013, see below link:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/shona%20scott/all?commit=Search&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Virtually all requests relate to historic child abuse investigations and are submitted to forces across the
country, and other national agencies such as the Home Office.
The leading case law on the interpretation of Section 14(1) Vexatious requests can now be found in
the Upper Tribunal Case of Dransfield. Here it was established that a ‘vexatious’ request is one that is
Gloucestershire Constabulary Headquarters
No 1 Waterwells, Waterwells Drive, Quedgeley, Gloucester, GL2 2AN
www.gloucestershire.police.uk
manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or an improper use of the FOIA procedures, which hinge upon
four key, but not exhaustive principles:
(1) The burden - on the public authority and its staff. This involves considering the previous course of
dealings with the requestor, looking at factors such as the number of requests, their breadth or the
pattern of their arrival;
(2) The motive - of the requester. That FOIA is “motive blind” does not mean that there can be no
examination, under s14, of the justification for the request, or its motive. It may be “ill-intentioned”, or
have drifted so far from its original purpose as to become disproportionate.
(3) The value or “serious purpose” of the request. The UT recognised the potential for overlap with (2),
and also cautioned about “jumping to conclusions” about a lack of serious purpose; but there should
be an objective public interest in the release of information sought.
(4) Any harassment or distress, of and to staff – by the use of bullying language etc. This was not,
however, a prerequisite for the application of s14.
We need to establish if there is evidence that the requests submitted by you, which relate to an
extremely sensitive topic area, can be labelled vexatious.
Unreasonable Persistence
Some information relating to the police operations you are submitting requests on, has already been
placed into the public domain. You are persistently submitting FOI requests relating mostly to
operations where their existence has been confirmed within the public domain and in addition we feel
you are trying a “catch-all” tactic to glean information that hasn’t been disclosed previously and that
would be useful to offenders. In some cases it has been confirmed that exempt bodies are involved
but for others this is not the case, see below links:
www.north-wales.police.uk/news__appeals/latest_news/operation_pallial.aspx
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-launch-criminal-investigation-into-mps-child-sex-
ring-8456434.html
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/836m28.htm
Frequent or Overlapping Requests
The number of requests submitted by you is vast, there is evidence that you do not wait for one
response to be responded to before you submit another. This can be evidenced by the number of
requests submitted to one force, over a four week period, detailed below:
05/12/13 – Request submitted re Operation Glenlivet
05/12/13 – Request submitted re Operation Elm
12/12/13 – Request submitted re Operation Hedgerow
30/12/13 – Request submitted re Operation Ore
07/01/14 – Request submitted re Operation Ore
The above requests are to one force only and there are several others that have been submitted to
other forces during that same timescale.
Going back to the Dransfield Tribunal, this concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “…
manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure …”
Its decision clearly established that the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any
consideration of whether a request is vexatious. The key question we must ask ourselves is whether
the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress?
To assess the proportionality we need to consider any evidence about the serious purpose or value of
that request. In this case there is information in the public domain which articulates the stringent
guidelines that are followed by police forces when investigating child abuse and sexual offences, such
Gloucestershire Constabulary Headquarters
No 1 Waterwells, Waterwells Drive, Quedgeley, Gloucester, GL2 2AN
www.gloucestershire.police.uk
as the Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel; the ACPO Strategy & Supporting Operational Guidance for
Policing Prostitution and Sexual Exploitation; Rape: Guidance on Investigation and Prosecuting Rape;
Protecting the Public: Guidance on Managing Sexual Offenders and Violent Offenders, 2nd Edition,
see below links.
www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2013/201306-cba-csa-review-panel.pdf
www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2012/201210CSEplan.pdf
www.acpo.police.uk/ProfessionalPractice/Crime.aspx
www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2010/20110301%20CBA%20ACPO%20(2010)%20Guida
nce%20on%20Protecting%20the%20Public%20v2%20main%20version.pdf
The fact that this information is open to public scrutiny, and taking into account the fact that police
forces must be able to carry out the delivery of law enforcement effectively, and at times covertly, to
ensure the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders is
carried out, must be acknowledged.
The sensitivity of the information requested must also be taken into account and it is felt that no
serious purpose or value would be gained from disclosure of the information.
In addition we need to take into account the burden each request would have on the public authority.
Although some forces have only received one or two requests from you, all requests relate to historic
child abuse and each one has to be dealt with on a case by case basis in order to establish what
information is held. The information itself then has to be analysed to see if it is suitable for disclosure.
In Dransfield it was clearly established that it is perfectly possible for a single, or one-off, request to be
vexatious, it also established that the threshold for a request to be found to be vexatious need not be
set too high.
Therefore, given the overall burden upon forces of these requests, coupled with the lack of any
serious purpose or value of the requests and the unreasonable persistence and overlapping of
requests, the collaborative mosaic effect of the information being disclosed should not be
underestimated.
I can confirm that Gloucestershire Constabulary are refusing to answer your new questions 1-4 above
by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act.
With regard to question 5, this information is classed as personal information and is therefore exempt
under Section 40 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.
Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at s1 (1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information
specified in a request is held. The second duty at s1 (1)(b) is to disclose information that has been
confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the
applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states
(if that would not be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Gloucestershire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested,
as the duty in s1 (1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply. To give a statement of
the reasons why neither confirming nor denying is appropriate in this case would itself involve
disclosure of exempt information, therefore under section 17(4), no explanation can be given. To the
extent that Section 40(5) Personal Information applies, Gloucestershire Constabulary has determined
that in all the circumstances of this request the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty
to neither confirm nor deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether or not the information is
held.
Gloucestershire Constabulary Headquarters
No 1 Waterwells, Waterwells Drive, Quedgeley, Gloucester, GL2 2AN
www.gloucestershire.police.uk
Please be aware that information released under the Freedom of Information Act should be
considered a release in the widest sense, i.e. to the World, and the release of this information,
including either confirming or denying whether or not it is held would breach the Data Protection
Principles, namely the first principle which requires that personal information be processed fairly and
lawfully. This acts as a refusal notice for this part of your request.
You can apply for information that may be held about you by Gloucestershire Constabulary via the
Subject Access provisions under the Data Protection Act. The relevant forms can be found on the
Constabulary website under Data Protection, Subject Access or via the link below:
www.gloucestershire.police.uk/Data_Protection/Subject%20Access/item18830.html
If you are not satisfied with the above response then have the right to apply to the Information
Commissioners office for consideration.
If we can be of any further assistance please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Miss G Richards
Assistant Disclosure Officer
Gloucestershire Constabulary
Gloucestershire Constabulary Headquarters
They take the view that she is being 'vexatious' in making 121 requests to public authorities since 2013. I can see how they might think this, but as large as the figure is, I can also see how many people could see FoI requests as the only way to glean information from the 'powers that be', when they use bureacracy to withhold it in most other circumstances.
So, if they are going to start refusing Shona Scott's requests, as they have done in this case, I hope she avails herself of more public ways of pursuing answers. The validity of her cause can be judged by the public then, not police officers with a motivation for concealment.
---------------------------------
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Operation Shogun'.
Dear Ms Scott
Gloucestershire Constabulary Freedom of Information request 2014.5090
On the 15/01/2014 you sent an enquiry regarding the response to FOI Request 2014.5090 asking the
following:
Thank you for the response and information which was useful.
1. May I ask again whether any of this informationis on HOLMES and if so filed under what
categories or headings?
I note your comments
"Under the provisions of the Act an authority must process a request in writing from a named applicant
under the terms and conditions of the legislation. Whilst giving maximum support to individuals
genuinely seeking to exercise the right to know, the Commissioner's general approach will be
sympathetic towards authorities where requests can be characterised as being part of a campaign.
Therefore with regard to this request we are including a warning under Section 14(1) (Vexatious
Request) of the Freedom of Information Act that any future requests may attract this exemption "
Under s 16 please could you state
2. Where this guidance is from the commissioner?
3. What your definition of campaign is?
4. Why you think this request might be part of a campaign?
5. Did you receive communication from outside Gloucester Constabulary with regard to this?
In response to your enquiry:
The Freedom of Information Act is a piece of legislation designed to give the public access to
information held by public authorities. It exists to make the decisions of those authorities transparent
and to keep the populace better informed regarding matters which affect them. It is not designed as a
tool to be used to gather information in order to build a pattern of information relating to historic child
abuse (mosaic approach). Child abuse is an extremely emotive subject area which is regularly subject
of media scrutiny and public debate and as such a lot of information is already in the public domain
relating to the operations the applicant has submitted FOI requests on.
The Police Service attracts a large volume of requests which place huge pressures on small teams of
individuals charged with ensuring lawful compliance. Common sense dictates that we have to use
those resources wisely, and principles have been established within the judicial framework of the
legislation to protect authorities when requests are a burden on its staff, have no serious purpose or
value or harass and/or distress staff. It is vital that the motives of the requester are taken into account
when considering these issues.
Whatdotheyknow.com website identifies that you have submitted a total of 121 requests to public
authorities since 2013, see below link:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/shona%20scott/all?commit=Search&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Virtually all requests relate to historic child abuse investigations and are submitted to forces across the
country, and other national agencies such as the Home Office.
The leading case law on the interpretation of Section 14(1) Vexatious requests can now be found in
the Upper Tribunal Case of Dransfield. Here it was established that a ‘vexatious’ request is one that is
Gloucestershire Constabulary Headquarters
No 1 Waterwells, Waterwells Drive, Quedgeley, Gloucester, GL2 2AN
www.gloucestershire.police.uk
manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or an improper use of the FOIA procedures, which hinge upon
four key, but not exhaustive principles:
(1) The burden - on the public authority and its staff. This involves considering the previous course of
dealings with the requestor, looking at factors such as the number of requests, their breadth or the
pattern of their arrival;
(2) The motive - of the requester. That FOIA is “motive blind” does not mean that there can be no
examination, under s14, of the justification for the request, or its motive. It may be “ill-intentioned”, or
have drifted so far from its original purpose as to become disproportionate.
(3) The value or “serious purpose” of the request. The UT recognised the potential for overlap with (2),
and also cautioned about “jumping to conclusions” about a lack of serious purpose; but there should
be an objective public interest in the release of information sought.
(4) Any harassment or distress, of and to staff – by the use of bullying language etc. This was not,
however, a prerequisite for the application of s14.
We need to establish if there is evidence that the requests submitted by you, which relate to an
extremely sensitive topic area, can be labelled vexatious.
Unreasonable Persistence
Some information relating to the police operations you are submitting requests on, has already been
placed into the public domain. You are persistently submitting FOI requests relating mostly to
operations where their existence has been confirmed within the public domain and in addition we feel
you are trying a “catch-all” tactic to glean information that hasn’t been disclosed previously and that
would be useful to offenders. In some cases it has been confirmed that exempt bodies are involved
but for others this is not the case, see below links:
www.north-wales.police.uk/news__appeals/latest_news/operation_pallial.aspx
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-launch-criminal-investigation-into-mps-child-sex-
ring-8456434.html
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmhaff/836/836m28.htm
Frequent or Overlapping Requests
The number of requests submitted by you is vast, there is evidence that you do not wait for one
response to be responded to before you submit another. This can be evidenced by the number of
requests submitted to one force, over a four week period, detailed below:
05/12/13 – Request submitted re Operation Glenlivet
05/12/13 – Request submitted re Operation Elm
12/12/13 – Request submitted re Operation Hedgerow
30/12/13 – Request submitted re Operation Ore
07/01/14 – Request submitted re Operation Ore
The above requests are to one force only and there are several others that have been submitted to
other forces during that same timescale.
Going back to the Dransfield Tribunal, this concluded that ‘vexatious’ could be defined as the “…
manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or improper use of a formal procedure …”
Its decision clearly established that the concepts of ‘proportionality’ and ‘justification’ are central to any
consideration of whether a request is vexatious. The key question we must ask ourselves is whether
the request is likely to cause a disproportionate or unjustified level of disruption, irritation or distress?
To assess the proportionality we need to consider any evidence about the serious purpose or value of
that request. In this case there is information in the public domain which articulates the stringent
guidelines that are followed by police forces when investigating child abuse and sexual offences, such
Gloucestershire Constabulary Headquarters
No 1 Waterwells, Waterwells Drive, Quedgeley, Gloucester, GL2 2AN
www.gloucestershire.police.uk
as the Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel; the ACPO Strategy & Supporting Operational Guidance for
Policing Prostitution and Sexual Exploitation; Rape: Guidance on Investigation and Prosecuting Rape;
Protecting the Public: Guidance on Managing Sexual Offenders and Violent Offenders, 2nd Edition,
see below links.
www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2013/201306-cba-csa-review-panel.pdf
www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2012/201210CSEplan.pdf
www.acpo.police.uk/ProfessionalPractice/Crime.aspx
www.acpo.police.uk/documents/crime/2010/20110301%20CBA%20ACPO%20(2010)%20Guida
nce%20on%20Protecting%20the%20Public%20v2%20main%20version.pdf
The fact that this information is open to public scrutiny, and taking into account the fact that police
forces must be able to carry out the delivery of law enforcement effectively, and at times covertly, to
ensure the prevention and detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders is
carried out, must be acknowledged.
The sensitivity of the information requested must also be taken into account and it is felt that no
serious purpose or value would be gained from disclosure of the information.
In addition we need to take into account the burden each request would have on the public authority.
Although some forces have only received one or two requests from you, all requests relate to historic
child abuse and each one has to be dealt with on a case by case basis in order to establish what
information is held. The information itself then has to be analysed to see if it is suitable for disclosure.
In Dransfield it was clearly established that it is perfectly possible for a single, or one-off, request to be
vexatious, it also established that the threshold for a request to be found to be vexatious need not be
set too high.
Therefore, given the overall burden upon forces of these requests, coupled with the lack of any
serious purpose or value of the requests and the unreasonable persistence and overlapping of
requests, the collaborative mosaic effect of the information being disclosed should not be
underestimated.
I can confirm that Gloucestershire Constabulary are refusing to answer your new questions 1-4 above
by virtue of Section 14 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act.
With regard to question 5, this information is classed as personal information and is therefore exempt
under Section 40 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities.
Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at s1 (1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information
specified in a request is held. The second duty at s1 (1)(b) is to disclose information that has been
confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon s17 of FOIA requires that we provide the
applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) states
(if that would not be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Gloucestershire Constabulary can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested,
as the duty in s1 (1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply. To give a statement of
the reasons why neither confirming nor denying is appropriate in this case would itself involve
disclosure of exempt information, therefore under section 17(4), no explanation can be given. To the
extent that Section 40(5) Personal Information applies, Gloucestershire Constabulary has determined
that in all the circumstances of this request the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty
to neither confirm nor deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether or not the information is
held.
Gloucestershire Constabulary Headquarters
No 1 Waterwells, Waterwells Drive, Quedgeley, Gloucester, GL2 2AN
www.gloucestershire.police.uk
Please be aware that information released under the Freedom of Information Act should be
considered a release in the widest sense, i.e. to the World, and the release of this information,
including either confirming or denying whether or not it is held would breach the Data Protection
Principles, namely the first principle which requires that personal information be processed fairly and
lawfully. This acts as a refusal notice for this part of your request.
You can apply for information that may be held about you by Gloucestershire Constabulary via the
Subject Access provisions under the Data Protection Act. The relevant forms can be found on the
Constabulary website under Data Protection, Subject Access or via the link below:
www.gloucestershire.police.uk/Data_Protection/Subject%20Access/item18830.html
If you are not satisfied with the above response then have the right to apply to the Information
Commissioners office for consideration.
If we can be of any further assistance please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Miss G Richards
Assistant Disclosure Officer
Gloucestershire Constabulary
Gloucestershire Constabulary Headquarters
