Recently in HO Terrorism Act 2000 s44 Authorisations Category

Why has it taken the Home Ofice so long not to consider the new balance of Public Interest in favour of disclosure, compared to our original Freedom of Information Act request back in 2007 ?

What is so difficult about telling us exactly when and where tempoarary , extrordinary legal powers actually apply ?

Given the revelations by the new Conservative / Liberal Democrat governmet of so many mistakes by Regional Police Forces, the central Metropolitan Police unit, Home Office civil servants and the politicians at the Home Office, regarding these Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 / 45 Authorisations, which haveresulted in in hundreds or thousands o illegal stops and searches, we must conclude that, contrary to the Freedom of Information Act, the real reason for the refusal of our FOIA request is politcal coverup rather than genuine national security.

Home Office
Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
OSCTFOI@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

FOI reference: 15213

[name]
[email]

27 September 2010

Dear [name]

I am writing further to my e-mail of 1 September 2010 about your request for information on s44 (Terrorism Act 2000) authorisations. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

You made a request for similar information on s44 authorisations in November 2007. The request for that information was considered by the Home Office and, subsequently, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). In their Decision Notice of 8 February 2010 (ref: FS50198733) the Commissioner held that the requested information was properly withheld under the exemption at section 24 (1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Consequently, I am of the opinion that the Home Office has fully considered the requests for information on points 1 - 5 in your current request. I do not believe that it is necessary to address these requests once more as our assessment remains that the disclosure of the information you requested would damage national security, for the same reasons as previously provided.

In addition to the above requests, you also asked to be informed of which Ministers have confirmed which s44 authorisations (and when) between February 2001 (when the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force) and 11 June 2010. In the ICO's Decision Notice of February 2010, the Commissioner indicated that the disclosure of details such as dates, times and geographical locations (i.e. which forces have authorised use of the power) could assist terrorists by allowing them to '...ascertain the likelihood of their activities coming to the attention of the police or anti-terrorist agencies'. The Commissioner was of the opinion '..that any advantages gained by further informing the public would be significantly outweighed by the factors for protecting the public by maintaining the exemption' (i.e. Section 24(1)). Consequently, the Home Office considers that details of the forces who had S44 authorisations in place and when these authorisations were in place come within the exemption at S24(1). From the information available,however, I have provided a list of those Ministers who have confirmed s44 authorisations in this period - see annex A.

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference 15213. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.

Information Access Team

Home Office
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
e-mail: FOIRequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely

[name of civil servant]


The list of Labour politicians who have signedTerrorism Act 2000 Section 44 Stop and Search *Wwithout* Reasonable Supicion requests, is long and dishonourable.

We do not trust any of these people::

Annex A

PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION

Name Appointment

John Denham Minister of state,

Home Office: 2001- 2003

Beverley Hughes Minister of State, Home Office:2002-04

Keith Bradley Minister of State, Home Office, 2001-02.

Bob Ainsworth Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

Home Office, 2001-03

Angela Eagle Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office, 2001-02

Jeff Rooker Minister of State: 2001-02

David Blunkett Secretary of State for the Home Department: 2001-
04

Hilary Benn Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office, 2002-03

Michael Wills Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State: 2002-03

Lord Falconer of Thoroton Home Office (Criminal Justice, Sentencing and Law
(Charles Falconer) Reform) 2002-03,

Baron Filkin of Pimlico (Life Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and
Baron), David Geoffrey Nigel Government Spokesperson for:
Filkin Home Office 2002-03,

Paul Goggins Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State:
Home Office 2003-06,

Caroline Flint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office 2003-05;

Fiona MacTaggart Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office, 2003-06

Hazel Blears Minister of State, Home Office, 2003-06

Baroness Scotland of Asthal Minister of State and Government Spokesperson for
(Life Baroness), Patricia Janet Home Office 2003-07;
Scotland;

Des Browne Minister of State Home Office, 2004-05

Charles Clarke Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2004-
06.

Tony McNulty Minister of State Home Office, 2005-08;

Andy Burnham Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home
Office 2005-06

John Reid Secretary of State for the Home Department, 2006-
07

Jacqui Smith Secretary of State for the Home Dept, 2007-09

Vernon Coaker Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, 2006-08

and Minister of State, 2008-09

Meg Hillier Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Home Office
2007-10

David Hanson Minister of State
Home Office 2009-10

Adm. Alan William John West Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and
Government Spokesperson, Home Office 2007-10
Lord West of Spithead


It is interesting that, according to this FOIA response, neither Home Secretary Theresa May , nor any other Conservative / Liberal Democrat Home Office Ministers, apart from Baroness Neville-Jones have signed any such Authorisations:

CURRENT ADMINISTRATION

Baroness Neville-Jones of Hutton Roof Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Home Office 2010 -

How long will the Home Office bureaucrats atempt to delay our request for an Internal Review ?

Another month of prevarication and delay - what is so difficult about this ?

Home Office
Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
E-mail: OSCTFOI@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

{email]

[name]

FOI Reference: [nnnnn]

1 September 2010

Dear [name]

I am writing in relation to your information request dated 11 June 2010 and further to
my letter of 4 August 2010.

In keeping with the decision of the ICO (ref: FS50198733) we need to consider fully the use of the exemption in section 24 (1) of the Act, which relates to information supplied by or relating to national security.

No you do not ! Such information was not requested.

See the FOIA Section 24: National Security

It is inconceivable that any warnings or intelligence about terrorist threats passed on to Chief Constables would be exactly duplicated in the geographical extent of the area which a section 44 Authorisation would cover - it is almost certain that the area which the Police would ask for an Authorisation for, would be larger than the actual target e.g. several streets around a political party conference hotel, an area of several kilometres around an airport terminal building or runway etc.


I have noted the point you have made about section 31 in your email of 6 July. As you are aware, however, the ICO did not consider use of the exemption at section 31(1) (a), (b) and (c).

See the FOIA Section 31: Law Enforcement exemption

If this section 44 extraordinary, temporary power for "stop and search" without reasonable suspicion is meant to act a s a deterrent, the time, date and geographical location of when and where it is in force must not be kept secret !

Publishing such information would have no effect whatsoever on operational security or investigations, since the numbers and types of Police deployed to unspecified roadblocks and checkpoints is not part of such Authorisations nor was it even asked for in this FOIA request.

We will still need to address the use of this exemption when responding to your request. To take account of the points raised in your most recent email we need more time and will need a further extension. We now aim to let you have a full response by 30 September 2010.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the further delay in replying to your request and assure that we will respond as quickly as possible.

Should you have any queries about the handling of your information request then please do not hesitate to contact us at the above address quoting reference [nnnnn].

Yours sincerely

[name of civil servant]


This is now the second extension of the Public Interest Test which the Home Office is taking.

The 30th of September 2010 would be 77 working days after the initial FOIA request.

This is now contrary to the Information Commissioner's Office guidelines which say that such Public Interest Test should take no more than 40 days in total, even in the most complicated cases

See Time limits on considering the public interest (GPG4) (..pdf)

[...]

our view is that public authorities should aim to respond fully to all requests within 20 working days. In cases where the public interest considerations are exceptionally complex it may be reasonable to take longer but, in our view, in no case should the total time exceed 40 working days.

Where any additional time beyond the initial 20 working days is required to consider the public interest, the public authority must still serve a "refusal notice" under section 17 of FOIA within 20 working days of a request even in those cases where it is relying on a qualified exemption and has not yet completed the public interest test.

[...]

By taking so long to consider the same Public Interest Tests which they have already done before, the Home Office seems to be trying to delay a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office, who will not accept a complaint until the departmental Internal Review procedures have been exhausted.


We seem to be going down the same path of deliberate delay and obstruction, with the Home Office breaching the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, as before.

Remember, all that we are asking to be published is the bare minimum laid down in the text of the Terrorism Act 200 sections 44 and 45 and 46 i.e. the time and duration and geographical location of each Authorisation to suspend the normal rule of law regarding Stop and Search Without Reasonable Suspicion.

Given the recent revelations of thousands of clerical errors with the Authorisations, rendering thousands of Stops and Searches illegal and the Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition policy changes and promises to review this legislation, surely the Public Interest is now even more in favour of full publication.

The unnecessary secrecy appears to have been used for political coverup purposes rather than for any demonstrable national security benefit.

Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
E-mail: OSCTFOI@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

{email address]

[name]

FOI Reference: [nnnnn]
4 August 2010

Dear [name]

I am writing in relation to your information request dated 11 June 2010 and further to my letter of 6 July 2010. I can confirm receipt of your email dated 6 July 2010.

In keeping with the decision of the ICO (ref: FS50198733) we need to consider fully the use of the exemption in section 24 (1) of the Act, which relates to information supplied by or relating to national security. I have noted the point you have made about section 31 in your email of 6 July. As you are aware, however, the ICO did not consider use of the exemption at section 31(1) (a), (b) and (c). We will still need to address the use of this exemption when responding to your request. To take account of the points raised in your most recent email we need more time and will need a further extension. We now aim to let you have a full response by 2 September 2010.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay in replying to your request and assure that we will respond as quickly as possible.

Should you have any queries about the handling of your information request then please do not hesitate to contact me quoting reference [nnnnn]

Yours sincerely

[name of civil servant]

A reminder to the Home Office, from the previous ICO Decision Notice:

69. Although they do not form part of this Decision Notice the Commissioner wishes to highlight the following matters of concern.

[...]


Information Notice

75. During the course of his investigation, the Commissioner has encountered considerable delay on account of the Home Office's reluctance to meet the timescales for response set out in his letters. The delays were such that the Commissioner found it necessary to issue an Information Notice in order to obtain details relevant to his investigation.

76. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not consider the Home Office's approach to this case to be particularly co-operative, or within the spirit of the Act. As such he will be monitoring the authority's future engagement with the ICO and would expect to see improvements in this regard.

See ICO Decision Notice FS50198733 - Home Office: Terrorism Act 2000 s44 stop and search Authorisations

[Home Office logo]

Office for Security and Counter Terrorism
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
E-mail: OSCTFOI@homeoffice.x.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk

{email address]#ho_foia@nym.hush.com

[XXXX]

FOI Reference: nnnnn

6 July 2010

Dear [XXXX],

Thank you for your e-mail of 11 June 2010, in which you ask for details of stop and search authorisations under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. Your request is being handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

We are considering your request. Although the Act carries a presumption in favour of disclosure, it provides exemptions which may be used to withhold information in specified circumstances. Some of these exemptions, referred to as 'qualified exemptions', are subject to a public interest test. This test is used to balance the public interest in disclosure against the public interest in favour of withholding the information. The Act allows us to exceed the 20 working day response target where we need to consider the public interest test fully.

The information which you have requested is being considered under the exemptions in sections 24 and 31 of the Act, which relate to information supplied by or relating to national security and law enforcement. These are qualified exemptions and to consider the public interest test fully we need to extend the 20 working day response period. We now aim to let you have a full response by 4 August 2010.

If you have any questions about the handling of your information request then please do not hesitate to contact us quoting the reference nnnn

Yours sincerely,

{name of civil servant]


N.B. our FOIA request re-emphasised that we are not requesting any information from the background or tactical intelligence, which may have been submitted to the Home Secretary in order to justify the supposedly temporary suspension of the normal laws on stop and search in a particular area, so there does not need to be any "public interest test" under the FOIA section 24 national security exemption.

Such background intelligence may well be necessary to make a reasonable decision as to whether to grant or deny an Application by a Chief Constable for Section 44 extraordinary powers, but that is not mentioned in the wording of the Terrorism Act 2000,. This Act only specifies that the Application has to include time, duration and location data and that it has to requested by someone of the appropriate rank i.e. Chief Constable / Commissioner of Police or their Deputies.

Surely, since hundreds or thousands of people may have been illegally stopped and searched, not just once or twice, but dozens of times, as the Home Office has now admitted, the public interest balance in favour of disclosure must also apply under the FOIA section 31 law enforcement exemption.

See:.

Ministerial Statement to the House of Lords:
Terrorism: Stop and Search
10 June 2010

by Baroness Neville-Jones the Minister of State (Security) at the Home Office,

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-06-10a.66.0&s=speaker%3A13936#g66.1
HL Deb, 10 June 2010, c66WS

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100610-wms0004.htm#10061034000361

The number of such stupid errors would have been vastly reduced or even totally eliminated, if the Home Office had published the times, durations and location of each application of the extraordinary, supposedly temporary, section 44 stop and search without reasonable cause powers., simply because members of the public, the press and the lower rank and file of of the Police forces themselves, would have acted as a check on the handful of secretive slap dash bureaucrats and politicians who messed things up, over and over again.

If they had been open and transparent by publishing the information requested in our FOIA request, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg could not have ruled against the Labour Government and the Home Office, in the CASE OF GILLAN AND QUINTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM:

87. In conclusion, the Court considers that the powers of authorisation and confirmation as well as those of stop and search under sections 44 and 45 of the 2000 Act are neither sufficiently circumscribed nor subject to adequate legal safeguards against abuse. They are not, therefore, "in accordance with the law" and it follows that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

If the Government had been open and transparent about the supposedly temporary, strictly time and location limited Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 stop and search without reasonable suspicion powers for Police Constables in Uniform, then they would not have got into the mess which was revealed by Baroness Neville-Jones on Thursday.

In the light of the even greater public interest in disclosure, Spy Blog has repeated the FOIA request of 14th November 2007.

There must be a suspicion that the previous FOIA request was refused, not on the grounds of national security, as claimed, but to cover up administrative incompetence.

Home Office
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF

E-mail: To: FOIrequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
cc: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
cc: info.access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Friday 11th June 2010

FOIA request: Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 stop and search *without* reasonable cause Authorisations (time, date, geographical extent and Ministerial authorisation only)

Dear Sirs,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the following information:

Regarding the Terrorism Act 2000 stop and search *without* reasonable cause legal power for a Constable in Uniform:

Section 44 Authorisations
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-b2-l1g44

and

Section 46 Duration of authorisation
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-b2-l1g46

1) Authorisations which the Secretary of State has been informed of under Section 46 (3)

2) Authorisations which have not been confirmed by the Secretary of State and which have lapsed under Section 46 (4)

3) Authorisations modified by the Secretary of State under Section 46 (5)

4) Authorisations which have been cancelled by the Secretary of State under Section 46 (6)

5) Authorisations renewed in writing under Section 46 (7)

6) Given the numerous administrative failures and the thousands of illegal searches, mentioned in the Ministerial Statement of 10th June 2010 by Baroness Neville-Jones (HL Deb, 10 June 2010, c66WS), I also want to see exactly which Minister signed which Authorisation and when.

Please disclose all of the Authorisations since the Terrorism Act 2000 came into force until today Friday 11th June 2010.

If that is deemed to be too many Authorisations, then please advise how this FOIA request may best be modified, according to your duty under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Section 16 Duty to provide advice and assistance.

N.B. as per my previous Freedom of Information Act 2000 request for the same information, submitted back on the 14th November 2007 (see the ICO Decision Notice attached), I am *not* requesting any of the background intelligence material produced to support the granting of such an Authorisation.

I am *only* interested in the time, date, duration and geographical extent (either in words or on a map or plan etc.) of each Authorisation made under section 44 of the the Terrorism Act 2000.

-----------------------------------

ICO Decision Notice on my previous FOIA request.

For your information, I have attached a (.pdf) copy of the Decision Notice Reference: FS50198733 of the 8th February 2010.

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fs_50198733%20.pdf

There must not be a repeat of the delays which caused the Information Commissioner to issue an Information Notice, breach of which amounts to a Contempt of Court by the individuals responsible:

"63. The information request in this case was made on 14 November 2007. The public authority failed to comply with section 1(1) until 8 February 2008. In failing to provide a response compliant with section 1(1) within 20 working days of receipt of the request, the public authority breached section 10(1).

[...]

Information Notice

75. During the course of his investigation, the Commissioner has encountered considerable delay on account of the Home Office's reluctance to meet the timescales for response set out in his letters. The delays were such that the Commissioner found it necessary to issue an Information Notice in order to obtain details relevant to his investigation.

76. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not consider the Home Office's approach to this case to be particularly co-operative, or within the spirit of the Act. As such he will be monitoring the authority's future engagement with the ICO and would expect to see improvements in this regard."


-------------------

Ministerial Statement to the House of Lords:
Terrorism: Stop and Search
10 June 2010

by Baroness Neville-Jones the Minister of State (Security) at the Home Office,

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2010-06-10a.66.0&s=speaker%3A13936#g66.1
HL Deb, 10 June 2010, c66WS

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/100610-wms0004.htm#10061034000361

--------------------

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste" locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered and why you have decided that the public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Wednesday 7th July 2010

Yours Sincerely,

Given the recent European Court of Human Rights judgement about the controversial and widely abused Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 "stop and search" without "reasonable suspicion" legal powers, and, without any measurable positive effect on terrorism, we think that the Home Office and the Information Commissioner's Office are both very wrong in their decision to refuse our modest Freedom of Information Act request.

See European Court of Human Rights Judgment against the Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 stop and search without reasonable cause powers

More comments on this Decision Notice soon, when we have some feedback from our expert friends.

Reference: FS50198733

Information Commissioner's Office

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50)
Decision Notice Date: 8 February 2010

Public Authority: Address:
The Home Office
Seacote Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P4DF

[...]

Summary


The complainant requested copies of all Authorisations for the power to stop and search issued under the Terrorism Act 2000. During the investigation, the request was refined as being for certain information contained within those Authorisations.

The public authority refused to release any information citing the exemptions at section
23 (Information supplied by or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters), section
24 (National security) and section 31 (Law enforcement). The complainant did not contest any information withheld by virtue of section 23.

The Commissioner's decision is that the exemption at section 24(1) is engaged and that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure. He finds that this exemption applies to all the remaining information sought by the complainant so the exemption at section 31 has not been further considered.

The Commissioner has also identified procedural breaches which are outlined in the Notice below. The complaint is therefore partly upheld.

[...]

59. As cited in paragraph 34 above, "... 'national security' means the security of the United Kingdom and its people". The Commissioner is of the opinion that releasing the requested information would cause specific and real threats to national security. He believes that the information could be used by terrorists to support and influence their activity. He therefore believes that any advantages gained by further informing the public would be significantly outweighed by the factors for protecting the public by maintaining the exemption. The complaint is therefore not upheld.

60. As the Commissioner finds that all of the remaining requested information (to
which section 23 does not apply) is exempt by virtue of section 24(1) he has not gone on to consider the exemption at section 31(1 )(a), (b) and (c).

[..]

The decision


66. The Commissioner's decision is that the public authority dealt with the following elements of the request in accordance with the requirements of the Act:

  • the requested information was properly withheld under the exemption at section 24(1) of the Act.

67. However, the Commissioner has also decided that the following elements of the request were not dealt with in accordance with the Act:

  • in failing to provide a response compliant with section 1(1 )(a) within 20 working days of receipt of the request, the public authority breached section 10(1);
  • in exceeding the statutory time limit for providing a response the public authority breached section 17(1).

Steps required


68. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.


Other matters


69. Although they do not form part of this Decision Notice the Commissioner wishes to highlight the following matters of concern.

[...]


Information Notice

75. During the course of his investigation, the Commissioner has encountered considerable delay on account of the Home Office's reluctance to meet the timescales for response set out in his letters. The delays were such that the Commissioner found it necessary to issue an Information Notice in order to obtain details relevant to his investigation.

76. Accordingly, the Commissioner does not consider the Home Office's approach to this case to be particularly co-operative, or within the spirit of the Act. As such he will be monitoring the authority's future engagement with the ICO and would expect to see improvements in this regard.

[...]

Read the full Decision Notice (hopefully without too many OCR and editing errors):

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has now drafted a Decision Notice, which is going up the the management hierarchy for signature, regarding the Home Office and Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 "stop and search without reasonable suspicion" Authorisations.

We did not request any of the background national security intelligence on why such Authorisations were or were not justified. We simply requested the time, date, duration and geographical area locations of where the section 44 powers were in force. These extraordinary legal powers are explicitly not meant to be used for general policing, or to be in force everywhere, all of the time.

There is no difference in practice between "secret laws", which are meant to be an anathema to British justice, and the application of an Act of Parliament in secret - the end result is just as nightmarishly Kafkaesque for thousands of innocent people caught up by them in error, without apology or compensation.

Remember that not a single terrorist has ever been caught "red handed" as a result of the hundreds of thousands of these section 44 stop and searches, Neither have any of the recent Irish republican terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland nor any of the Al Queada inspired attacks in England or Scotland been deterred by such secret stop and search Authorisations.

See this blog's HO Terrorism Act 2000 s44 Authorisations catgory archive.

It looks as if the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) has notified, and formally sent a Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 51 Information Notice to the Home Office, regarding our Complaint about or FOIA request for time,place and duration details of Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 stop and search Authorisations..

25th June 2009

CASE REFERENCE NUMBER FSnnnnnnnn

XXX

This is to advise you that I have just sent an Information Notice to the Home Office as they have not yet responded to my initial enquiries they are not yet in receipt of it but are aware that one has been posted. They have 28 days to comply with this.

[...]

Regards

[name]

Senior Complaints Officer

Our original FOIA request was made back in December 2007, and the Information Commissioner's Office has been trying to get something back from the Home Office since the end of April 2009.

It is unusual for the ICO to have to flex its few legal muscles in this way, but technically, if the Home Office does not comply within 28 days, i.e. by Friday 24th July 2009, they could be brought before a High Court Judge and face Contempt of Court proceedings under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 section 54 Failure to comply with notice

3) Where a failure to comply is certified under subsection (1), the court may inquire into the matter and, after hearing any witness who may be produced against or on behalf of the public authority, and after hearing any statement that may be offered in defence, deal with the authority as if it had committed a contempt of court.

We are not asking for any "national security" or "intelligence" related material, only for enough information to determine exactly where, when and for how long supposedly strictly temporary and geographically limited legal powers were, or are still currently in force.


Apologies for not blogging this recent FOIA "news" a bit earlier.

After a delay of over a year, the Information Commissioner's Office now has someone investigating the FOIA complaint about the Home Office regarding the request for just time, date and location details of where and when the controversial Terrorism Act 2000 section 44 "stop and search without reasonable cause" powers are temporarily in force.

This response from the ICO came 533 days or 1 year, 5 months, 16 days ago since the original request to the Home Office !

The ICO have already turned up a reference to the

Home Office Circular 038 2004

The 2004 Notes even state that the whole Authorisation Form is
"discloseable", so there really is no excuse for the Home Office's
refusal of my 2007 FOIA request !

"5. It must be remembered that the S.44 authorisation is a
discloseable document and, as such, care must be taken not to
include direct reference to matters that could compromise the
broader counter-terrorist activities carried out by Special
Branches or allied Agencies. To that end there should be no
reference to operation names or to classified briefing material
unless absolutely necessary - in which case the authorisation
should be protectively marked and handled in strict accordance with
Government Security Marking Guidelines"

As you would expect, both of these versions of the Authorisation Forms ask for Maps if these would be helpful:

4. There may be occasions where it would be helpful to those reviewing the extent of the authorisation for relevant maps etc to be attached clearly showing the area in question. Where it is necessary for the defined area to be explained in detail then it is acceptable for that information to be added as an appendix to the Authorisation.

The correspondence so far:

Another 12 weeks wasted in the Information Commissioner's Office complaints queue:

The original FOIA request was made back on Wednesday 14th November 2007

23rd February 2009
CASE REFERENCE NUMBER FS50198733
Dear XXX
We last wrote to you on 25 November 2008 about the Freedom of
Information Act complaint you made to the Information Commissioner.
This complaint concerns the request you made to the Home Office on 14
November 2007. This request concerns the number of authorisations
under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Your case remains in the queue of Team 2 (Police and Justice).
Please accept my apologies for the delays that you are experiencing.

The ICO allocated a case number to this complaint back on Tue, 06 May 2008

The Freedom of Information Act is not working properly !

Your case will be allocated when it reaches the front of our queue
and a Complaints Officer has capacity to investigate it in full
detail. We are unfortunately unable to provide updates about either
the content or progress of your case until it is allocated.
I will write to you every twelve weeks prior to allocation and a
Complaints Officer will write to you to inform you when your case is
allocated.
I hope this email is clear and helpful.
Yours sincerely
David McNeil

Complaints Officer

THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE.
____________________________________________________________________

The ICO's vision is a society where information rights and
responsibilities are respected by all.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email (and any
attachment), please inform the sender by return email and destroy all
copies. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying is
not permitted.
Communication by internet email is not secure as messages can be
intercepted and read by someone else. Therefore we strongly advise
you not to email any information, which if disclosed to unrelated
third parties would be likely to cause you distress. If you have an
enquiry of this nature please provide a postal address to allow us to
communicate with you in a more secure way. If you want us to respond
by email you must realise that there can be no guarantee of privacy.
Any email including its content may be monitored and used by the
Information Commissioner's Office for reasons of security and for
monitoring internal compliance with the office policy on staff use.
Email monitoring or blocking software may also be used. Please be
aware that you have a responsibility to ensure that any email you
write or forward is within the bounds of the law.
The Information Commissioner's Office cannot guarantee that this
message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted
and amended. You should perform your own virus checks.
__________________________________________________________________
http://www.ico.gov.uk or email: mail@ico.gsi.gov.uk
Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF
Tel: 01625 545 700 Fax: 01625 524 510

About this blog

This United Kingdom based blog has been spawned from Spy Blog, and is meant to provide a place to track our Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests to United Kingdom Government and other Public Authorities.

If you have suggestions for other FOIA requests,  bearing in mind the large list of exemptions, then email them to us, or use the comments facility on this blog, and we will see  what we can do, without you yourself having to come under the direct scrutiny of  "Sir Humphrey Appleby" or his minions.

Email Contact

Please feel free to email us your views about this website or news about the issues it tries to comment on:

email: blog @spy[dot]org[dot]uk

Here is our PGP public encryption key or download it via a PGP Keyserver.

WhatDoTheyKnow.com

WhatDoTheyKnow.com - FOIA request submission and publication website from MySociety.org

Campaign Buttons

cfoi_150.jpg
Campaign for the Freedom of Information

NO2ID - opposition to the Home Office's Compulsory Biometric ID Card
NO2ID - opposition to the Home Office's Compulsory Biometric ID Card and National Identity Register centralised database.

Watching Them, Watching Us, UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign
UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign

Peaceful resistance to the curtailment of our rights to Free Assembly and Free Speech in the SOCPA Designated Area around Parliament Square and beyond

Parliament Protest blog - resistance to the Designated Area restricting peaceful demonstrations or lobbying in the vicinity of Parliament.

irrepressible_banner_03.gif
Amnesty International 's irrepressible.info campaign

Yes, Minister

Yes, Minister Series 1, Episode 1, "Open Government" First airtime BBC: 25 February 1980

"Bernard Woolley: "Well, yes, Sir...I mean, it [open government] is the Minister's policy after all."
Sir Arnold: "My dear boy, it is a contradiction in terms: you can be open or you can have government."

FOIA Links

Campaign for the Freedom of Information

Office of the Information Commissioner,
who is meant to regulate the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Scottish Information Commissioner,
who similarly regulates the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002

Information Tribunal - deals with appeals against decisions by the Information Commissioners.

Freedom of Information pages - Department for Constitutional Affairs

Friends of the Earth FOIA Request Generator and links to contact details for Central Government Departments and their Publication Schemes

UK Government Information Asset Register - in theory, this should point you to the correct Government documents, but in practice...well see for yourself.

Access all Information is also logging some FOIA requests

foi.mysociety.org - prototype FOIA request submission, tracking and publication website

Blog Links

Spy Blog

UK Freedom of Information Act Blog - started by Steve Wood, now handed over to Katherine Gundersen

Your Right To Know - Heather Brooke

Informaticopia - Rod Ward

Open Secrets - a blog about freedom of information by BBC journalist Martin Rosenbaum

Panopticon blog - by Timothy Pitt-Payne and Anya Proops. Timothy Pitt-Payne is probably the leading legal expert on the UK's Freedom of Information Act law, often appearing on behlaf of the Information Commissioner's Office at the Information Tribunal.

Syndicate this site (XML):

Recent Comments

  • GF: They obviously just wanted more time to respond, illegally (ironically read more
  • Geoff Hillyard: My police Union told be that I would be read more
  • Geoff Hillyard: My earlier letter talking about the lie that I read more
  • wtwu: Apart from an automatic email dispaly receipt from public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Spy read more
  • Reinaldo Assum: Well, this is my first visit to your blog! We read more
  • Britta Gaviglia: I admit, I have not been on this webpage in read more
  • Angelita Ellingwood: Aw, this was a really quality post. In theory I'd read more
  • Emmett Peelman: Thanks so much for this post! A couple of minutes read more
  • wtwu: This Decision Notice is now available as a(.pdf) from the read more
  • wtwu: The ICO has now published this Deciaion Notice as a read more

November 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

Categories