Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
How much are lawyers profiting from the public purse?
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism.
Met Police rejects FOI request about payments to Carter Ruck
September 26th, 2011 | by Jamie Thunder | Published in All Stories, Open Society
How much are lawyers profiting from the public purse? We aren’t allowed to know.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has rejected a Freedom of Information request asking for details of payments to legal firm Carter Ruck for work for the former Assistant Commissioner, John Yates, who resigned earlier this year after the service was criticised over its investigation into phone hacking.
In July, author Richard Wilson asked for details of all payments made by the MPS to Carter Ruck, a well-known company that specialises in libel actions, since 2005. He asked for details of the services any payments were for, and how much each payment was.
He also requested confirmation of whether the MPS had covered the costs of Carter Ruck’s work for John Yates. Complaints on Yates’ behalf had been made to news organisations over their reporting of his role in the phone-hacking investigation.
An excuse
The Freedom of Information Act requires public bodies to respond to requests within 20 working days. But on the day this deadline passed, the MPS said it would need another two weeks to give an answer because it had moved offices.
When it eventually replied, it confirmed it had paid Carter Ruck for Yates. But details of other work and costs incurred were not released, as this was deemed to be ‘personal information’.
Personal information is exempt under s.40 of the Freedom of Information Act. Yet it is difficult to see how amounts paid for pieces of work could constitute personal information; the request was for details of payments to a company, not an individual. If the exemption was used because it was for work done on behalf of an individual – John Yates – it is even harder to see how it is appropriate as Yates didn’t pay the costs himself.
Although the Freedom of Information Act wasn’t able to uncover how much was paid to Carter-Ruck to handle Yates’ complaints, the Independent reports today that the firm received over £7,000 for the case. Why such ‘personal information’ was able to be publicly revealed to the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee but not to a member of the public is unclear.
The payment of Yates’ costs also raises questions. The MPS’ response said payments for legal advice were only made ‘for cases which have the potential to bring the organisation as a whole into disrepute’. But if the complaints brought the MPS into disrepute, why were they sent on Yates’ behalf rather than the MPS’?
Internal review
Not satisfied with the response, Richard Wilson asked for an internal review. There’s no time limit for a review set out in the Freedom of Information Act, but the Information Commissioner’s Office says that public bodies should try to complete reviews in 20 working days.
Two weeks after asking for a review, he received an acknowledgement. Last Friday, another two weeks after that, the MPS told him there had been a delay and that the review would be completed by October 20. It gave no reason for this, and a complaint is being made to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
It’s now been over two months since the original request was made, and will be another month before the outcome of the internal review is known. There have been repeated delays, sometimes without any explanation, and a seemingly strange interpretation of ‘personal information’ used to justify withholding information.
The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to open up public bodies. But as this case shows, access to information can still be denied and delayed.
The original request and correspondence is on WhatDoTheyKnow here.
Met Police rejects FOI request about payments to Carter Ruck
September 26th, 2011 | by Jamie Thunder | Published in All Stories, Open Society
How much are lawyers profiting from the public purse? We aren’t allowed to know.
The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has rejected a Freedom of Information request asking for details of payments to legal firm Carter Ruck for work for the former Assistant Commissioner, John Yates, who resigned earlier this year after the service was criticised over its investigation into phone hacking.
In July, author Richard Wilson asked for details of all payments made by the MPS to Carter Ruck, a well-known company that specialises in libel actions, since 2005. He asked for details of the services any payments were for, and how much each payment was.
He also requested confirmation of whether the MPS had covered the costs of Carter Ruck’s work for John Yates. Complaints on Yates’ behalf had been made to news organisations over their reporting of his role in the phone-hacking investigation.
An excuse
The Freedom of Information Act requires public bodies to respond to requests within 20 working days. But on the day this deadline passed, the MPS said it would need another two weeks to give an answer because it had moved offices.
When it eventually replied, it confirmed it had paid Carter Ruck for Yates. But details of other work and costs incurred were not released, as this was deemed to be ‘personal information’.
Personal information is exempt under s.40 of the Freedom of Information Act. Yet it is difficult to see how amounts paid for pieces of work could constitute personal information; the request was for details of payments to a company, not an individual. If the exemption was used because it was for work done on behalf of an individual – John Yates – it is even harder to see how it is appropriate as Yates didn’t pay the costs himself.
Although the Freedom of Information Act wasn’t able to uncover how much was paid to Carter-Ruck to handle Yates’ complaints, the Independent reports today that the firm received over £7,000 for the case. Why such ‘personal information’ was able to be publicly revealed to the Metropolitan Police Authority and the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee but not to a member of the public is unclear.
The payment of Yates’ costs also raises questions. The MPS’ response said payments for legal advice were only made ‘for cases which have the potential to bring the organisation as a whole into disrepute’. But if the complaints brought the MPS into disrepute, why were they sent on Yates’ behalf rather than the MPS’?
Internal review
Not satisfied with the response, Richard Wilson asked for an internal review. There’s no time limit for a review set out in the Freedom of Information Act, but the Information Commissioner’s Office says that public bodies should try to complete reviews in 20 working days.
Two weeks after asking for a review, he received an acknowledgement. Last Friday, another two weeks after that, the MPS told him there had been a delay and that the review would be completed by October 20. It gave no reason for this, and a complaint is being made to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
It’s now been over two months since the original request was made, and will be another month before the outcome of the internal review is known. There have been repeated delays, sometimes without any explanation, and a seemingly strange interpretation of ‘personal information’ used to justify withholding information.
The Freedom of Information Act is supposed to open up public bodies. But as this case shows, access to information can still be denied and delayed.
The original request and correspondence is on WhatDoTheyKnow here.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Thursday, September 08, 2011
A Different Look At The Riots.
The recent riots in London and the rest of the UK, brought fear and consternation to many.
Businesses lost money and property due to the looting.
Some people lost homes and all their possessions.
The initial trouble began in Tottenham, after the shooting of Mark Duggan and the subsequent mishandling of the grieving family.
Not helped by the 'misleading' statement from the NonIPCC.
Sporadic violence then erupted throughout London.
The two major incidents, to my mind, were the fires in Croyden and Greenwich.
The Croyden furniture store had been a family run business for 140 years.
These days, the internet must surely be forcing these types of stores out of business.
Great that nobody was hurt in the fire and lucky that the insurance will pay out, handsomely.
The property destroyed by arson in the second incident appears more intentional.
Developers have been casting their greedy eyes over this for years now.
The local supermarket on the ground floor had long left due to the high rent.
Leaving a collection of flats above, all on protected rents.
The land, especially with the Olympics coming is worth millions.
It was burnt to the ground !
Makes looting tvs and trainers look trivial, doesnt it ?
Businesses lost money and property due to the looting.
Some people lost homes and all their possessions.
The initial trouble began in Tottenham, after the shooting of Mark Duggan and the subsequent mishandling of the grieving family.
Not helped by the 'misleading' statement from the NonIPCC.
Sporadic violence then erupted throughout London.
The two major incidents, to my mind, were the fires in Croyden and Greenwich.
The Croyden furniture store had been a family run business for 140 years.
These days, the internet must surely be forcing these types of stores out of business.
Great that nobody was hurt in the fire and lucky that the insurance will pay out, handsomely.
The property destroyed by arson in the second incident appears more intentional.
Developers have been casting their greedy eyes over this for years now.
The local supermarket on the ground floor had long left due to the high rent.
Leaving a collection of flats above, all on protected rents.
The land, especially with the Olympics coming is worth millions.
It was burnt to the ground !
Makes looting tvs and trainers look trivial, doesnt it ?
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
Thursday, September 01, 2011
More Horror In Dunblane.
A Dunblane survivor is facing life in prison for carrying out a sex attack on an OAP.
Ryan Liddell, 20, was found guilty of assault with intent to rape following a trial in June.
Liddell had been shot in the chest and arm, by Thomas Hamilton, during the "Dunblane massacre", of 1996, in which 16 young children and their teacher died.
The 76 year old victim was kicked in the head and lost two teeth in the attack.
A terrible, frightening ordeal.
****
This story made me think about the Dunblane massacre, again.
Didn't Thomas Hamilton run a boys club in the town ?
Hamilton was a suspected paedophile, though this was not brought up at the inquest(s) into the massacre.
Could Lyddell have attended the boys club ?
How many other Dunblane boys attended ?
Do the abused become the abuser ?
And Thomas Hamilton had powerful friends.
Were they aware of Hamiltons predilections for violence ?
So many questions...
I truly hope this will be the last chaper of horror for Dunblane.
Yet, somehow, I doubt it.
Ryan Liddell, 20, was found guilty of assault with intent to rape following a trial in June.
Liddell had been shot in the chest and arm, by Thomas Hamilton, during the "Dunblane massacre", of 1996, in which 16 young children and their teacher died.
The 76 year old victim was kicked in the head and lost two teeth in the attack.
A terrible, frightening ordeal.
****
This story made me think about the Dunblane massacre, again.
Didn't Thomas Hamilton run a boys club in the town ?
Hamilton was a suspected paedophile, though this was not brought up at the inquest(s) into the massacre.
Could Lyddell have attended the boys club ?
How many other Dunblane boys attended ?
Do the abused become the abuser ?
And Thomas Hamilton had powerful friends.
Were they aware of Hamiltons predilections for violence ?
So many questions...
I truly hope this will be the last chaper of horror for Dunblane.
Yet, somehow, I doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)