Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Ground Floor, Seacole Building, 2 Marsham
Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Direct Line 020
7035 1037
E-mail O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Our Ref 10041
Your Ref
Date 23 October 2009
Mr Albert Moisiu
Email: x@x
Dear Mr Moisiu
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: INTERNAL REVIEW
I am writing in relation to our earlier
correspondence about your Freedom of
Information (FOI) request for information
about limitations that might have been
placed on the disclosure of information
about the inquiry into Madeline
McCann’s disappearance or those associated
with it. I am extremely sorry for
the unacceptable length of time that has now
passed since you submitted your
original internal review request. As will no
doubt be aware, the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has been in
touch with us about the case.
The detailed results of the internal review
will be sent you next week. However
in the meantime I feel it appropriate to
provide the following update.
First, in relation to your original request
the outcome of the review will be to
uphold the original decision to neither
confirm nor deny the existence of any
information relating to any restrictions
placed on the disclosure of information
about the McCann Inquiry. I will however be
providing you, when I write again
next week, with revised information about
the reasons behind that decision.
You should not take this statement as an
indication that the Home Office either
does or does not hold information relevant
to your original request.
Second, in your internal review request you
asked a second supplementary
question about whether “any organisation in
the British media (has) 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”. This is
a somewhat different question to that which
you originally asked, or at least
which we answered. Should we have
misinterpreted your original request, I
apologise for this. Irrespective of this, I
will also provide an answer to this either
refined or further question next week as
well as the detailed explanation of the
original decision referred to above.
I would like to apologise again for the
delay in bringing this case to its
conclusion, and hope that you find the
information within this letter to be of
interest. I also hope that you will find the
letter that I am to send next week
informative.
I will be
forwarding a copy of this letter to the ICO
given their interest in this
case.
Yours sincerely
[Graphic Image Signature]
O L
Information Access Manager
====================================================
Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Ground Floor, Seacole Building, 2 Marsham
Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Direct Line 020
7035 1037
E-mail O.L@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Our Ref
10041
Your Ref
Date 30 October 2009
Mr Albert Moisiu
Portugal
Dear Mr Moisiu
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: INTERNAL REVIEW
I write further to my letter of 23 October.
As promised please I am providing you with
further information about the refusal of
your initial request. Given their interest
in this case, a copy of this letter will
again be sent to the Information
Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
In order to carry out my review we contacted
the Home Office unit where your initial
request for information was considered. We
were provided with a copy of the reply sent
to you on 28 January and I apologise for the
time it took to send you that reply. In the
circumstances described in that letter, I am
satisfied that the reply you received was
correct to neither confirm nor deny whether
the Home Office holds information relevant
to your original request. However, the
explanation supporting the use of exemptions
in this case was not as comprehensive as it
might have been. I provide additional
information in the attached annex.
By way of further explanation I would like
to make clear again that your request was
defined as being for the disclosure of any
information held by the Home Office about
any restrictions that might have been placed
on the sharing of information with the
Portuguese authorities following a formal
request for Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA)
from them. It is the response to this
request that I consider to have been correct
for the reasons given in the attached annex.
However in your internal review request I
note that you appear to refine your request
to ask simply whether or not any part of the
British media has been restricted in its
reporting of the McCann inquiry. This is a
somewhat different question to that which we
initially answered. I will be in a position
to respond to this question substantively at
the beginning of next week, and apologise
for not being able to do so tonight.
I hope that the information and explanations
provided in this letter are of interest.
However if you are not satisfied with this
response the ICO will investigate this
matter further on your behalf. I will be in
touch very shortly in response to your one
more recent and outstanding question.
Yours sincerely
[Graphics Image Signature]
O L
Information Access Manager
WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC
Annex
Application of the exemptions
You should not take the explanation provided
below as an indication that the Home
Office either does or does not hold
information relevant to your request, or
about
whether any limitations exist in relation to
any MLA application received in relation to
the McCann inquiry.
Engagement of section 27(4)
This exemption exists to protect the United
Kingdom’s international relations, its
interests abroad and the United Kingdom’s
ability to protect and promote those
interests where saying whether or not
information is held would be harmful to
them. In this case confirming whether or not
the UK response to any request for MLA, in
this case for information relevant to the
inquiry, had been limited would result in
harm being caused to the UK’s relations with
other countries. This is relevant in the
context of this case, and more widely. If in
this we were to acknowledge in any ongoing
case that such a limitation did exist, it
would damage our relations with that
country. Additionally if we were to
acknowledge that in any case no such
limitation did exist, but then have to
answer a question about a case where such a
limitation did exist we would not be able to
issue the required neither confirm nor deny
response without in effect confirming the
fact. Consequently I am satisfied that
section 27(4) is engaged in relation to
section 27(1)(a) of the FOI Act, which
relates to prejudice being caused to the
UK’s relations with other countries.
Engagement of section 31(3)
Section 31(3) protects various law
enforcement purposes where saying whether or
not information is held would harm them. In
this case any deterioration in the UK’s
relations with another country, either in
relation to this inquiry or any other, would
be likely to have a negative impact upon the
prospects of success in relation to, first,
the prevention and detection of crime,
second, the apprehension and prosecution of
offenders, and finally the administration of
justice. For these reasons section 31(3) is
engaged because of the likelihood of harm
being caused to these three purposes, which
are explicitly covered by sections 31(1)(a),
(b) and (c) of the Act.
Engagement of section 38(2)
Section 38(2) protects individuals from harm
where saying whether or not information is
held would be harmful to them. It is
possible that providing confirmation of
whether information relevant to your request
is held would endanger Madeleine McCann, as
it has not been proven that she is dead,
with the result that the exemption is
engaged in this case.
The Public Interest Test
All three exemptions are subject to a public
interest test. This means that they can only
be applied where the public interest in
confirming whether or not information is
held is outweighed by that against. I am
satisfied that the public interest in
openness is outweighed by that in favour of
employing the exemptions. There is a clear
public interest in openness and
accountability in relation to this case, and
in ensuring that information has been made
available where appropriate to both the
authorities and the UK and Portugal in
support of the investigation. However it is
also worth noting that a considerable amount
of private interest exists in relation to
the McCann case which should not be confused
with the wider public interest – i.e. it is
necessary to remember that what certain
individuals might find interesting is not
the same as what is in the public good. The
public interest in openness is however
outweighed by the overriding public interest
in ensuring that the McCann inquiry is
ultimately brought to a conclusive end.
Given the likelihood of prejudice to this
aim, I am satisfied that the public interest
favours the application of sections 27(4),
31(3), and section 38(2).
|
