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.

One Resignation. Another Death.

Metropolitan Police Deputy, John Yates, resigned last night.

His position had become untenable, yet he still stared like a man who thinks "fuck you, all".
His integrity intact ?
Hardly.

"No evidence", Yates whined.
There was plenty of evidence, but like many senior officers before him, he looked the other way.

The fact he was having an affair, coupled with the knowledge his own phone was hacked and people may know of his extra marital activities, was enough to blind John Yates.

Sean Hoare, a former News of the World reporter, was found dead at his home, yesterday.
A spokeman for Hertford Police said the death "although unexplained, was not suspicious".

It was Hoare, who first blew the whistle on the phone hacking activities of Andy Coulson, the Prime Minister's communications chief.

RIP Sean Hoare.

News International Was Blackmailing John Yates.

In 2009, John Yates, assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, decided that there was no evidence to re-open an investigation in phone hacking by News International.

John Yates spent an entire day(!) perusing the allegations and decided not to investigate.
A decision he now admits was "pretty crap".

Was his decision making infuenced by the knowledge that his own phone had been hacked by NI ?
He was aware he himself had been a target and yet, said and did nothing.

John Yates, a married man, was having an affair.

Was the UK's chief officer in counter terrorism a victim of blackmail ?

Jail Andy Coulson.
Jail Murdoch.
Jail Rebekah Brooks.

Jail the police officers who took money from Murdoch and News International.