The purpose of this site is for information and a record of Gerry McCann's Blog Archives. As most people will appreciate GM deleted all past blogs from the official website. Hopefully this Archive will be helpful to anyone who is interested in Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann. Many Thanks, Pamalam

Note: This site does not belong to the McCanns. It belongs to Pamalam. If you wish to contact the McCanns directly, please use the contact/email details campaign@findmadeleine.com    

Freedom Of Information *

MCCANN FILES HOME BACK TO GERRY MCCANNS BLOGS HOME PAGE PHOTOGRAPHS
NEWS REPORTS INDEX MCCANN PJ FILES NEWS MAY 2007
 
Requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act

British Diplomat warned Foreign Office of concerns over McCanns
 
British Diplomat warned Foreign Office of concerns over McCanns, 03 October 2008
British Diplomat warned Foreign Office of concerns over McCanns whatdotheyknow.com

A concerned UK taxpayer and voter

3 October 2008


Dear Sir or Madam,

Firstly, I would like to quote part of a newspaper report in order to provide you with the source of my personal concerns about the matter I have referred to in the Summary box you provide regarding this FOI request by myself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

"The Foreign Office was alerted to fears over Gerry and Kate McCann by a British diplomat in Portugal just days after their daughter Madeleine went missing.

The diplomat was sent to the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in the days following the four-year-old's disappearance and soon became concerned over "inconsistencies" in the testimonies by her parents and their friends.

After visiting the McCanns, the unnamed diplomat sent a report to the Foreign Office in London, admitting his worries about "confused declarations" of the McCanns' movements on the night of May 3.

He also noted the couple's "lack of co-operation" with the Portuguese police.

The diplomat's concerns were made over four months before Gerry and Kate were named arguidos (suspects) on September 7.

Contents of the letter were leaked to Belgian newspaper La Dernière Heure over the weekend.

The diplomat expressed his fears after receiving instruction from the Foreign Office to provide "all possible assistance to the McCann couple".

The French-language paper printed excerpts of the letter, quoting the diplomat as saying: "With the greatest respect, I would like to make you aware of the
risks and implications to our relationship with the Portuguese authorities, if you consider the possible involvement of the couple.

"Please confirm to me, in the light of these concerns, that we want to continue to be closely involved in the case as was requested in your previous ­message."

Although the Government was quick to assist the McCanns in the days following Madeleine's disappearance, direct contact with the couple ceased when they were named as suspects.

La Dernière Heure pointed out that a majority of the diplomats originally involved in the case have now been taken off it.

The then-Prime Minister Tony Blair sent special envoy Sheree Dodd to act as a "media liaison officer" for the pair soon after Madeleine vanished.

Ms Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, while the British consul in the Algarve, Bill Henderson, has retired.

John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, no longer works in the country."

Furthermore:
BRITISH CONSUL Celia Edwards, who replaced Bill Henderson upon his retirement, resigned from her post on July 1st 2008, after one year's tenure.

My questions which I request an answer to via the FOI facility are:

A: Was such a report forwarded to the Foreign Office in early May 2007?

B: If so, who was the British Diplomat who forwarded this report?

C: What was the reply/response from the Foreign Office to this British Diplomat's report about such concerns?

D: Why did the Foreign Office provide such an unusual amount of Diplomatic and Government assistance to the McCann's?

E: Who was the person, or person's, within the Foreign Office who
seemingly overruled the British Diplomat's concerns?

I hope that clear and unequivocal answers to my questions about these matters can be provided via your FOI facility.

Yours faithfully,

A concerned UK taxpayer and voter.

Foreign & Commonwealth Office response, 23 October 2008

Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Request, page 1

Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) Request, page 2

Alleged sightings of Madeleine McCann in Hampshire

Alleged sightings of Madeleine McCann in Hampshire, date unknown 2008

Freedom Of Information Request
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/1024033/Madeleine-McCann-Sightings-Documents

Freedom Of Information Request

The McCanns' bank accounts

'Secret' accounts of Kate and Gerry, 02 February 2009
'Secret' accounts of Kate and Gerry Correio da Manhã
 
Madeleine: The British have never shown them
 
João Mira Godinho
02 February 2009 - 00h30
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation
 
The British authorities received two requests to provide financial information about the parents of Madeleine but the answers never arrived to the PJ
 
The Judiciary Police never had access to the bank account details of Gerry and Kate McCann. This is because the British authorities have never responded positively to both requests made by Portuguese investigators.

At the beginning of the process, a first request was made regarding Madeleine's parents and the friends who spent their holidays with them at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. The intention was to obtain more information about who those nine people were.

If data emerged about the seven friends, as to the place where they hold bank accounts and credit cards, then regarding Kate and Gerry the UK authorities have said very little.
 
"No record of a current bank account is held," said the English about Madeleine's father, adding that "there is no record of credit cards or loans." And the same for the mother of the girl who disappeared on May 3, 2007 at the Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz. The only information is about the bank where the mortgage of the McCann's house is held. They also refer that there no arrears or defaults registered.

In the rogatory letter sent in November 2007 to England, various diligences [legal investigative actions] were asked of the British police, where, once again, information was requested on the McCanns' bank accounts. And once again nothing arrived in Portugal.

The British authorities refused the request and simply said, as a justification, that they would not provide financial information on the couple. And the information never arrived.

"Ongoing investigation"
 
"The Home Office (British Ministry of Foreign Affairs) cannot confirm or deny" that the McCanns have had bank accounts between the 25 of April 2007 and 12 September 2008.

This is the reply given, in January of this year, to British journalists who tried to clarify this situation. Even stranger are the arguments used to justify the answer. The British say that "the investigation is ongoing" and this information could "jeopardise the investigation, the international relations and endanger the health and safety" of Madeleine. This when the case was officially archived in July last year.

"Given this, the UK authorities are lying to their subjects," said Gonçalo Amaral to CM . "The Attorney General said that case is archived," added the former coordinator of the PJ.
 
*
 
This is the complete Home Office response to the request for information about the McCanns' bank and credit card accounts, made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act):
 
Organised & International Crime Directorate
5th Floor Fry Building, 2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard xxx Fax xxx Direct Line xxx E-mail xxx
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Ms xxx Our ref: xxx
xxx@xxx
Date:28th January 2009
Dear Ms xxx
RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
HOME OFFICE MATERIAL RELATING TO MADELEINE MCCANN

I am writing further to my correspondence on the 16th December 2008. We are now in a position to offer a full reply to your request. I would like to apologise for the length of time it has taken to respond to your request. This delay has been due to giving full and due consideration to the public interest test together with the necessity to consult with other agencies.
 
It is noted that your request was to essentially seek information for any record or document or extract thereof reporting or evidencing that neither of the parents of Madeleine Beth McCann possessed any credit card or debit card from any financial institution during the period 25th April 2007 and 12th September 2007. You additionally requested any record or document or extract thereof reporting or evidencing that the alleged affirmation was made by any official of the Home Office to any police officer in the Leicestershire Constabulary and failing the existence of any written record whether such affirmation was made verbally the name of the official(s) and the recipient officer(s). The request was also seeking information of any record or document or extract reporting or evidencing the credit card or debit transactions made by the parents of Madeleine Beth McCann between the 4th May 2007 and 21st July 2008.
 
Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and we are now able to provide you with a substantive response to your request.
 
Section 1 of the Act places two duties on public authorities when handling requests. The first of these duties, provided at s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information requested is actually held by that authority. The second duty is for that information to be disclosed where it has been confirmed that it exists. This is provided under s1(1)(b).
 
The Home Office can neither confirm nor deny that we hold information relevant to your request as our duty under s1(1)(a) does not apply by virtue of the following provisions of the Act:
 
* Section 27(4) – prejudice to International Relations;
* Section 31(3) – prejudice to Law Enforcement activities; and
* Section 38(2) – endangering Health & Safety.
 
This letter therefore also serves as a refusal notice under s17(1) of the Act.
 
Furthermore, the Home Office will not comment on any of the information contained in Goncal Amaral's book, 'A Verdade da Mentira' as it would potentially undermine ongoing investigations.
 
There are a number of sensitivities relevant to your request, given that Madeleine McCann is still missing and the investigation is still ongoing. Confirming or denying whether any information is held could undermine the investigation, prejudice international relations and could endanger the health and safety of members of the public.
 
We have considered public interest considerations in making our decision and we have attached these to this letter. We believe that, at this time, the public interest strongly favours neither confirming nor denying that the information you have requested is or is not held by the Home Office.

This response should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested either does or does not exist.
 
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting your complaint within two months to the below address quoting reference xxx
 
Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Or email: xxx
 
During the independent review the department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by an official that was not involved in providing you with this response. Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
 
I realise that you may be disappointed with this response. However we have considered your request with great care, and the Home Office always seeks to provide as much information as it is able to.
 
Thank you for your interest in the Home Office.
 
Yours sincerely
xxx
Team Leader
UK Central Authority

Public Interest Considerations

s.17 – Refusal of request

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section1(1), give the applicant a notice which -
 
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
 
s.27 – International Relations
 
(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice,
 
(a) relations between the United Kingdom and any other state,
(b) relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation or international court
 
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) – (a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)

s.31 – Law Enforcement
 
(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-
 
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice,
 
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)
 
s.38 – Health & Safety
 
(1) Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to-
 
(a) endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or
(b) endanger the safety of any individual.
 
(4) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1)
 
Harm and prejudice
 
The investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is still ongoing. There are significant unknowns in relation to her disappearance. Leicestershire Constabulary are the lead force in the UK dealing with this investigation but the principle investigation agency is Policia Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal. We believe that significant harm to the investigation could result from either confirming or denying that we hold the information you have asked for.
 
Should this investigation lead to a prosecution, saying whether or not this information is or is not held by the Home Office would risk undermining the human rights of any suspect to a fair trial and the rights of a victim, particularly if the prosecution would fail due to such an announcement.
 
If the Home Office was to either confirm or deny that it did or did not hold any information that was gathered in the course of this investigation, it might risk compromising the conduct of this investigation. This could ultimately prejudice the administration of justice. In any event, to confirm or deny that any such information that was or was not obtained in the course of a criminal investigation, either voluntarily or through compulsory powers, ought not to be generally disclosed, save as far as it is necessary for the purposes of establishing or defending rights in litigation.
 
There is consequently a strong public interest in ensuring that evidence is not contaminated for any future trial. In addition there is a strong public interest to preserve relations with the Policia Judiciara (PJ) in Portugal whilst Madeleine remains missing.
 
Two of the Home Office's objectives are to support the efficient and effective delivery of justice, and to lead visible, responsive and accountable policing. The manner in which the Home Office works to support the Police Service as a whole is one of our core business functions.
 
If the Home Office prejudiced such a high-profile and sensitive investigation by confirming or denying that we either do or do not hold any of the information that you have requested, we would be seen as working against the efforts of both UK and Portuguese policing authorities, undermining their determined efforts to locate Madeline McCann and her assailants. This would not be in the best interests of the public.
 
Any prejudicial effects to these ongoing investigations could jeopardise the health & safety, of Madeline McCann, in that it might significantly affect the chances of her being found. There is no actual public interest served in releasing information that may jeopardise the health & safety of any individual.
 
There is a strong public interest in the UK maintaining the arrangements it currently enjoys with other States in matters of judicial and mutual legal cooperation in criminal and other matters. Any act that would prejudice this investigation may discourage other States with complying with reasonable requests issued by the UK or from pursuing legitimate investigations in the UK for fear that the product of such requests or investigations may be disclosed to private citizens.

Surveillance of the McCanns

Who was listening to Kate and Gerry McCann?, 18 February 2009
Who was listening to Kate and Gerry McCann? Daily Mirror
 
By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 18, 09 02:55 PM
 
A few days ago I received an interesting letter from Leicestershire police about the Madeleine McCann investigation.
 
I had asked them, in July, if they had got any warrants (under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to use surveillance powers - such as phone tapping and email interception on behalf of the Portuguese police.
 
The force initially stalled saying it needed to "consult other Agencies" before replying.
 
After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".
 
I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.
 
To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".
 
A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
 
Hmm.
 
Despite claiming these exemptions, Leicestershire seem at pains to neither confirm nor deny they hold any information relevant to my request anyway.
 
Check out (slowly I suggest) the tortuous conclusion to the three page letter explaining their stance.
 
"It is our decision that the Leicestershire Constabulary must maintain a position of neither confirming nor denying that any relevant information is held and that this response, which neither confirms nor denies that information is held, should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or does not exist".
 
Thanks, but I think that is a rather long-winded way of saying Foxtrot Oscar.
 
However, it does beg the question just who was bugging the McCanns after they returned from Praia da Luz?
 
And what has the answer got to do with national security?

Kate and Gerry McCann, and national security - update, 18 February 2009
Kate and Gerry McCann, and national security - update Daily Mirror
 
By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 18, 09 03:39 PM
 
I've just spoken to the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell who has declined to comment.
 
Quite sensible, really.
 
After all, you never know who's listening do you?

The McCann national security documents, 20 February 2009
The McCann national security documents Daily Mirror
 
By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 20, 09 10:45 AM
 
Thanks for taking so much interest in my post about the McCanns and "national security".
 
I have to say I'm a bit surprised that some of you think this proves that much about what happened to Madeleine, though.
 
From my point of view, it suggests Kate and Gerry may, I stress may, have been subjected to an unusual - perhaps unprecedented - degree of surveillance after the returned to the UK.
 
I'm not sure it indicates that much about what has happened to her and where she may be now.
 
I've made some more inquiries and it it would appear that the most likely agency involved in any bugging would be the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca).
 
They provide a lot of "technical assistance" to small police forces who don't have the skills or equipment to mount a major surveillance operation.
 
As some of you have pointed out, they work closely with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (CEOP) who carry out some very complicated and delicate operations against paedophiles.
 
If you click below you can see the letter from Leicestershire police.
 
Thanks
 

Freedom Of Information Request Reference No: 1092/08, page 1

Freedom Of Information Request Reference No: 1092/08, page 2

Freedom Of Information Request Reference No: 1092/08, page 3

McCann update: the deliberate mistake..?, 26 February 2009
McCann update: the deliberate mistake..? Daily Mirror

By JON CLEMENTS
Feb 26, 09 01:32 PM


Forgot to post this earlier letter from Leicestershire police in which they acknowledged my request under the Freedom of Information Act.

See if you can spot the unfortunate mistake in the letter.

The individual concerned apologised for the error and I accepted their assurances it was a slip of the pen not anything else.

Freedom Of Information Act request letter

Disclosure of emails

Freedom of Information Act - John Buck, Decision Notice, 03 March 2009
John Buck was British Ambassador to Portugal at the time of Madeleine's disappearance
John Buck was British Ambassador to Portugal at the time of Madeleine's disappearance

fs_50188322

Emails in Maddie hunt stay a secret, 13 April 2009
Emails in Maddie hunt stay a secret The Sun
 
By KATHRYN LISTER
Published: Today (13 April 2009)
 
EMAILS relating to the hunt for missing Madeleine McCann are to remain secret over fears they could offend the Portuguese authorities.
 
A request under the Freedom of Information Act asked for disclosure of emails and a letter sent between the British ambassador and Portuguese police in the weeks after Maddie vanished.
 
The Foreign Office initially released some information, but the rest was held back under a special exemption to protect international relations.
 
The anonymous applicant for more information appealed, arguing it was in the public interest.
 
But the Information Commissioner refused, saying disclosure could offend Portuguese authorities, harm the hunt for Maddie and cause "substantial" damage to international relations.
 
It is believed the request was rejected because some letters are critical of the investigation by Portuguese cops.
 
Maddie's parents Gerry and Kate, of Rothley, Leics, face a renewed attack tonight from a shamed ex-cop who was kicked off the case.
 
Goncalo Amaral will claim in a TV documentary that Maddie, then three, died in the family's apartment in Praia da Luz during their Algarve holiday in 2007.

A Magical Mystery Tour, 17 October 2009
A Magical Mystery Tour

John Buck: British Ambassador to Portugal at the time of Madeleine's disappearance

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
17 October 2009

 
A MAGICAL MYSTERY TOUR

The Beatles were responsible for so much that was, and is, good in our lives, it seems almost a sacrilege to adopt their lyrics as metaphors for the distasteful on-going farrago that is the McCann case. Nevertheless, I trust that those remaining warm-hearted Liverpudlians, messrs. McCartney and Starkey, would not object if their words were used to promote ease of understanding, in a case where complexity has been piled upon complexity, deliberately obscuring Occams razor almost to the point of invisibility. For we are all being encouraged to dance around the totem pole, while the tribal chief and his Shaman sidekick creep off into the darkness with the magic fleece. We might have the egg man but he is the Walrus.

'Imagine all the people... looking for our child.' And how was she taken from you? 'He came in through the bathroom window...'

At this point a complete rendition of Yesterday would sum the story up nicely.

Early on in his Beatles career, the dear departed George Harrison penned what could now be interpreted as a liar's libretto. Taken to No.1 in the UK charts by Billy J Kramer and the Dakotas, it runs:

'Listen.! Do you want to know a secret?
'Do you promise not to tell? Whoa, oh, oh,
'Closer. Let me whisper in your ear.
'Say the words I long to hear.
‘My secret's safe with you.'

O.k., so I've altered the last line a touch. But the stanza can otherwise be adopted 'as is' in relation to what follows.

"Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead."

Already a century-old before Benjamin Franklin utilised it, this proverb still carries some weight, although there are less dramatic options open to us these days, e.g. 'three may keep a secret if:'
(a) one is your local Catholic priest and the other his Cardinal

or

(b) one is your country's overseas Ambassador and the other resides in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
On March 19 this year the FOI News reported thus:

'Sensitive e-mails concerning the hunt for missing child Madeleine McCann will remain secret for fear of offending the Portuguese authorities who were tasked with finding her.

'A request for the disclosure of 13 e-mails and one letter, which were written in the two months after Madeleine went missing, was refused by the Information Commissioner.'

And later, discussing an appeal by the requester to the Information Commissioner's Office:

'The complainant said the release was in the public interest in order to uphold public confidence that British authorities do everything possible to help find missing children, reassure people the authorities keep in close contact with the police involved in the search and ensure public funds are used effectively to help find missing children.

'But the Commissioner said in his decision that the disclosure would offend the Portuguese authorities.

'He went on to say: "...even now, to disclose full information about the then ambassador's communications with the Portuguese authorities then, on a balance of probabilities, substantial damage to the international relationship would result."

'He added: "The Commissioner is mindful of the need for the UK authorities to be seen to be worthy of trust by their foreign counterparts in Portugal and elsewhere in the world.

'"He sees significant risk that disclosure of confidences or of other sensitive material would have damaging implications for any possible further developments on this matter and any relevant future investigations in Portugal or elsewhere in the world. This would not be in the best interests of the McCann family, including Madeleine, or of other UK citizens travelling to Portugal or elsewhere outside the UK."'

In sum therefore, the Commissioner took the view that, if the UK authorities were perceived as prepared to 'tell tales out of school' we would no longer be internationally respected for our integrity. Hence he felt it inappropriate to divulge 'sensitive material' or 'disclose confidences.'

It all sounds very paternal, very proper, until one discovers just what 'confidences' are being protected. I invite you, dear reader, to peruse in disbelief, as I have, comments recorded within the 3 March Decision Notice under Reference FS50188322:

Findings of fact

13. On May 3 2007 the child Madeleine McCann went missing: at the time of the information request the investigation into her disappearance was high profile and continuing. In determining to withhold certain information under the section 27 exemption, FCO consulted with the British Embassy in Lisbon and with two relevant authorities in the UK - Leicestershire Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

14. FCO told the Commissioner that a family member had made clear to FCO staff that all comments made by that individual to FCO had been made in strict confidence and were not intended for disclosure to third parties. FCO did not approach the family member again during the Commissioner's investigation but told the Commissioner that they were confident the individual would not appreciate being contacted regarding disclosure of the relevant personal information, a position the Commissioner accepted.

So, in part at least, an international incident is averted by not betraying the confidence of a family member, who would not appreciate being contacted.

Even as I write this I stare with complete and utter incredulity at these statements. If members of the UK Parliament viewed Carter-Rucks' attempt to suppress discussion of the Trafigura report as an affront to democracy, what on earth are we supposed to make of this?

'Dear Sirs at the FCO. Something rather unpleasant has happened to my daughter whilst on holiday in Portugal. A couple of us involved in the incident are prepared to tell a few lies to the media, to keep them at bay (in fact we've already done so), but we're not prepared yet to divulge all the details. Fortunately for all concerned, the Portuguese justice system obliges us to keep stum anyway, so our backs are covered there. Now this is all in strict confidence you understand, so you won't tell anyone will you?'

Is this how it goes? Is this the measure of sheer lunacy practised by the British Government and its unquestioning Civil Service? When, in Heaven's name will someone have the conviction and moral principle to point out that the Emperor is naked?

Satellite images

Satellite clue to Maddie kidnap, 18 October 2009
Satellite clue to Maddie kidnap Sunday Express

Sunday Express, 18 October 2009
Sunday Express, 18 October 2009

EXCLUSIVE

By James Murray
Sunday October 18, 2009


HOME Secretary Alan Johnson is prepared to ask US spy chiefs for satellite images which may show the face of Madeleine McCann's kidnapper, following intervention by the Sunday Express.

Hope of new progress came after it emerged Leicestershire Police never made a formal request to the Home Office for views of Praia da Luz on Portugal's Algarve at the time the little girl vanished in May 2007.

The quality of pictures taken by satellites in space is now so good they can reputedly identify the colour of someone's eyes.

Last night a senior source with the Portuguese police said: "We know US spy satellites regularly sweep over Portugal looking at military installations and government facilities.

"So we thought they might actually have images of Praia da Luz on the day of the kidnapping and the preceding days.

"We hoped spy images may have captured the kidnapper watching the apartment prior to the event or even on the day itself. Obviously, having a picture would have speeded up the apprehension of the offender."

Yet more than two years after Madeleine was snatched no help has been forthcoming, despite early requests from senior Portuguese detectives.

The Portuguese source explained: "This was fully discussed with Leicestershire Police and officials with the British Government.

"We were confident of getting progress because of Gordon Brown's interest in the case and this apparent special relationship between Britain and the United States.

"Your ambassador to Portugal even visited our officers soon after the kidnap.

"The bad news for us is that we got nowhere with this avenue of inquiry, which was both frustrating and infuriating."

For, despite all the talk, nothing appears to have been done officially with the British government and the formal requests were never made.

Last night a spokesman for Mr Johnson said extensive checks within the security intelligence community had failed to discover any formal request ever having come to them through Leicestershire Police from Portugal.

However, he said that if a request were now made Mr Johnson would see whether he could offer any assistance in trying to persuade the Americans to become co-operative.

The issue appears so sensitive that Prime Minister Mr Brown may have to speak directly to US President Barack Obama in order to achieve co-operation.

The Sunday Express sought explanations for the extraordinary situation from the US government's ultra- secretive National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.

The agency's lawyers are now considering a Freedom of Information request from the Sunday Express.

A spokesman for the agency said: "NGA does not provide imagery to private citizens or private companies. For reasons of national security we do not discuss specifics about what images we have or our capabilities."

Private investigators working for parents Kate and Gerry McCann, who live in Rothley, Leicestershire, have also tried to access US satellite images, but with no success.

FCO: FoI request, 14 December 2009

FCO: FoI request, page one, 14 December 2009

FCO: FoI request, page two, 14 December 2009

FCO: FoI request foi.fco.gov.uk

14 December 2009

- Extract -

The FCO filed the case in May 2008 [Ben Needham]. You will also be aware of the Madeleine McCann case. Both this and the Needham case are categorised as a missing persons, rather than child abduction cases, as there is no evidence in either case to support whether the children were or were not abducted.

Madeleine police files under wraps, 03 January 2010
Madeleine police files under wraps The Press Association

(UKPA) 03 January 2010 10:00AM

Thousands of British police files detailing the hunt for Madeleine McCann will not be released unless those behind her disappearance are brought to justice.

Senior Leicestershire Police officers have remained tight-lipped about their role co-ordinating the search for the toddler since she vanished from a Portuguese holiday resort in May 2007.

But analysts at the force have drawn up a list detailing the mass of information they have gathered and considered whether they would ever release any of it to the general public.

The paperwork includes everything from correspondence with Government ministers, minutes of police meetings, details of leads and sightings to copies of letters from the McCann family.

Leicestershire Police said they will not release any information while the inquiry is ongoing and will never reveal the tactics of their investigation. But internal documents suggest some papers may eventually be published.

They stated: "Anything in relation to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann will not be released whilst it remains ongoing.

"Consideration may be given to releasing certain material, ie, that which would not reveal police tactics, when the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disappearance are fully known and the person/people involved have been brought to justice and a suitable period for any appeal has elapsed."

Madeleine, from Rothley, Leicestershire, disappeared on May 3 2007 from Praia da Luz, nine days before her fourth birthday.

An investigation into her disappearance was carried out by the Portuguese police, supported by Leicestershire Police.

The force is responsible for co-ordinating British inquiries under the codename Operation Task.



Police keep Madeleine McCann files secret Daily Express

By Daily Express Reporter
Monday January 4, 2010


THOUSANDS of police files detailing the British involvement in the hunt for Madeleine McCann will remain secret until her kidnappers are brought to justice, it emerged yesterday.


Leicestershire Police said it would not discuss their role in co-ordinating the search for the youngster who vanished from a holiday apartment in Portugal in May 2007.

Their paperwork includes correspondence with ministers, details of leads and sightings as well as copies of letters from the McCann family.

Details of the Portuguese inquiry were released last year after the investigation was shelved.

Madeleine, from Rothley, Leicestershire, disappeared from Praia da Luz nine days before her fourth birthday.

Last night the McCanns' spokesman said: "Kate and Gerry have always been very grateful for the amount of time, effort and resources Leicestershire Police have taken to search for Madeleine.

"Their private investigators continue to have a good relationship with them as the search goes on."

Operation Task: Publication strategy, 18 December 2009

Operation Task Publication Strategy, page 1

Operation Task Publication Strategy, page 2

Operation Task Publication Strategy, page 3

Operation Task Publication Strategy, page 4

Source: Leicestershire Police, Operation Task: Publication strategy PDF

Met Police: High Profile FOIA Requests in week commencing 27th January to 2nd Febraury 2010
Met Police: High Profile FOIA Requests in week commencing 27th January to 2nd February 2010 WhatDoTheyKnow.com

 
itvfoi1.JPG

27th January to 2nd Febraury 2010

Request No: 16

Summary of Request: MPS correspondence with other forces re Madeleine McCANN and transcripts of interviews

Responsible Person & Unit: James F. Young - SCD12

Applicant and Reasons for being High Profile: **S40** - Media interest

Case No: 2010010005025

Deadline: 24/02/2010

Actual Request: In particular, ITV news would like to acquire any material, correspondence that were conducted with the portuguese police during 2007.
ITV news would also like to acquire any correspondence that either Leicestershire police or the met police had with the Home Office in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.
ITV news would also like to acquire transcripts of any interviews that were held with the McCanns or other witnesses.

And any information that you now consider no longer part of an ongoing investigation.

Home Office response to FoI request from The Madeleine Foundation, 22 June 2010
Home Office response to FoI request from The Madeleine Foundation The Madeleine Foundation

22 June 2010

From: Lister Ian (IMS) <Ian.Lister@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Home Office FoI request CR14428 PLUS FOUR MORE FOI QUESTIONS and COMPLAINT
To: "ANTHONY BENNETT" <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>
Date: Tuesday, 22 June, 2010, 14:03

Dear Mr. Bennett,

Thank you for your email of the 17th June 2010 about your ongoing request under the Freedom of Information Act that we received on the 22nd March 2010, in which you asked the twelve questions which you have detailed below.

I would like to apologise again for the amount of time it has taken to provide a substantive answer to your request. I appreciate that the fact that your request is still ongoing might appear to indicate that we are deliberately delaying our response to you or that we are trying to obfuscate the matter. I would like to reassure you that this is not the case.

The questions that you have asked relate to an investigation into the disappearance of a missing child; an investigation that is still ongoing within the UK at this time, as I am sure you are aware. Whilst your questions ask for the release of simple facts, as you put it, we must be extremely careful that our answers to those questions and the release of any information that we may or may not hold, does not prejudice this investigation, any relations between UK and Portuguese authorities or would be otherwise prejudicial to the effect conduct of public affairs.

I acknowledge that this matter is of significant interest to a large number of people and that there is great deal of ongoing speculation about the stage of investigation. As you have said, there is huge public interest in ascertaining what happen to Madeleine McCann. However, the 'public interest' that we consider in conjunction with the Freedom of Information Act, is not the same as what might be of interest to public, or what they might find interesting. In carrying out a Public Interest Test we consider the greater good or benefit to the community as a whole if the information is released or not. The 'right to know' that is provided by the FoI Act must be balanced against the need to enable effective government and to serve the best interests of the public.

Furthermore, the FoI Act is 'applicant blind'. This means that we cannot, and do not, ask about the motives of anyone who asks for information. In providing a response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the same response to anyone, including those who might, in some circumstances, represent a threat to the UK. In this instance, we must also consider whether or not our answers to your questions could be used by some members of the public to prejudice the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

We have to balance, on one hand, the inherent public interest in the Home Office being open and accountable whilst, on the other hand, how the public interest would be served by us providing answers that could prejudice these investigations or be otherwise detrimental to the work of the police, the government and the McCann family in their efforts to locate Madeleine. Would it be in the best interest of the public for the Home Office to be seen as releasing information that might prejudice the investigation? Probably not. Would it be in the public interest for the Home Office to release information that could potentially jeopardise relationships between the United Kingdom and policing authorities with which cooperate around the world? Would these authorities be willing to work with us in the future if we released information that potentially prejudices an ongoing investigation? The answer to both is no. Would it be in the public interest to release information that could help Madeleine’s captor evade detection and arrest? Most certainly not.

These are some of the considerations we are currently considering. Simply because the questions are direct and would only require simple answers, does not mean that potential prejudicial effects of providing those answers would not be far reaching. Whilst we do not doubt that, as a concerned member of the public, you are interested in ascertaining what information the Home Office holds on this matter, we must consider the possibility that some individuals may use this information to their advantage and not for the benefit of the community as a whole.

I would therefore like to apologise once again for the time it is taking us to provide you a response to your questions. Please be assured that this is because the subject matter is extremely sensitive and not because we are trying to obfuscate the matter or be deliberately awkward. Please also be assured that I am aware that we have exceeded the twenty working day deadline provided under s.10(1) of the Act and that, despite legitimately extending this deadline under s.10(3) of the Act, we have also exceed the forty working day guideline provided by the Information Commission. The Home Office does aim to provide a prompt response to all FoI requests but, in some cases, where the information is particularly sensitive, we do need to take some extra time to make sure we have considered all the aspects relevant to that case.

In regards to the four new questions which you have asked us to consider, these will need to be treated as a separate request. This is because a valid FoI request under s.8 of the FoI Act only concerns information that was held at the time a request was received. Because your new questions concern information that might have been recorded since your original request was received, we will need to consider it separately. In light of this, I would be grateful if you can confirm
that you would like us to answer these questions separately.

Thank you again for your interest in the Home Office and for your patience in this matter. If you have any more questions about the handling of your request, please don’t hesitate to contact me and I will be happy to help.

Yours sincerely,

Ian

Ian Lister
Information Access Consultant
Information Access Team



The original FoI request

Friday 19 March 2010

Home Office
Head of Freedom of Information Act Section
Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street
LONDON
SW1P 4DF

By e-mail to public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
And by hard copy

Dear Sir/Madam

re: Questions to the Home Office Freedom of Information Act Section - Involvement by the Home Office with the McCanns regarding a possible review or re-investigation into the disappearahce of Madeleine McCann

During the past two weeks, several newspapers have referred to the following matters in relation to the Madeleine McCann case:
a) one or more meetings between Home Secretary Alan Johnson and the McCanns

b) several meetings between the McCanns and staff of the Home Office

c) the commencement of a 'scoping exercise' to evaluate what form any review or re-investigation into Madeleine's disappearance may take

d) the appointment of the Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Mr Jim Gamble, to advise the Home Office as to which police force should carry out any review or re-investigation

e) the reported decision by Jim Gamble and the Home Office to appoint West Yorkshire Police to carry out a review or re-investigation.
It is evident that there remains huge public interest in and beyond the U.K. in what really happened to Madeleine McCann, which was described as recently as 19 February by the McCanns' chief public relations adviser, Mr Clarence Mitchell, as 'a complete mystery'. The clear public interest will therefore be served by your section providing full answers as soon as possible to the following questions under the Freedom of Information Act. We would add that the answers to these questions must be readily available to officials and so the cost of providing them should be minimal. Here are the questions:

1. On what date or dates has the Home Secretary Alan Johnson had meetings with  one or both of the McCanns?

2. Who else was present at these meetings: in particular, was any lawyer or othert adviser for the McCanns present?

3. On what dates did meetings take place between one or both of the McCanns and staff of the Home Office?

4. Please identify all the staff who met with the McCanns and again identify whether the McCanns had legal or other representatives with them.

5. On what date did the McCanns first approach the Home Office asking for a review or re-investigation by a British police force into Madeleine's disappearance?

6. Is the Home Office carrying out what the Daily Telegraph called 'a scoping exercise' to evaluate what form any review or re-investigation into Madeleine's disappearance may take and, if so, on what date did that scoping exercise
commence?

7. Why, according to the press, was Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Mr Jim Gamble, given the role of advising the Home Office as to which police force should carry out any review or re-investigation?

8. On what date did the Home Secretary ask Mr Gamble to perform this role?

9. On what date did Mr Gamble make his recommendation?

10. Did he, as reported, recommend West Yorkshire Police to carry out a review or re-investigation?

11. Has West Yorkshire Police, as reported, been asked to carry out a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

12. If so, what is the brief or remit that the Home Office has given to West Yorkshire Police?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Bennett

FoI request: The CPS respond to claim of a 'special unit', 21 July 2010
Involvement of CPS Headquarters in the case The Madeleine Foundation

 
The Madeleine Foundation statement on CPS involvement, 02 July 2010

Madeleine Foundation Media Statement released by the Committee Friday 2 July, 8.30pm

- Extract -

Recently, Tony was told by D.I. Roe that his decision-making in the case [allegations of fraud in The Madeleine Foundation] was being curtailed by a special unit within C.P.S. headquarters to which all matters relating in any way to the Madeleine McCann case had to be referred. To us, that illustrates that the eight-month investigation into Tony which has produced no evidence of fraud or deception may have been politically motivated and orchestrated at a high level.



FoI request to the CPS thepjfiles forum

From: b-j-r
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 9:56 AM
To: enquiries@cps.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: Freedom of Information - Special Unit within CPS dealing with all matters relating to Madeleine McCann

To the Head of CPS

Freedom of Information - Special Unit within CPS dealing with all matters relating to Madeleine McCan
n

I am writing to you today under the Freedom of Information Act so that you can clarify something that I have read on the internet referring to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the Crown Prosecution Service.

An article produced on the 2nd July 2010 by the Madeleine Foundation contains a passage as stated:

[as above]

I therefore request answers to the following questions under the Freedom of Information Act.

1. Firstly please could you confirm if the above statement is correct and if it is correct when was the special unit first formed?

2. If the statement is correct, who spearheads this special unit within the CPS?

3. If the statement is correct, why has this case been allowed to have a special unit that deals with anything to do with the Madeleine McCann case?

4. If the statement is correct who and which department did the order come from within the CPS giving authorisation to form a special unit and did they receive instructions from the Government to form this special unit, and if so which Minister authorised the sanctioning of the special unit?

5. If the statement is correct, please could you inform me of all costs that this special unit has incurred since its formation.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely

Mrs B R***



Response from the CPS, 21 July 2010

 
CPS response, 21 July 2010

21 July 2010

- Extract -

There is no special unit at the CPS that deals with all matters relating to Madeleine McCann.

Home Office response to FoI request concerning meetings and activities undertaken in support of a possible case review, 13 September 2010
Home Office response to FoI request concerning meetings and activities undertaken in support of a possible case review McCann Exposure

13 September 2010

Home Office
Information Access Team
Information Management Service
Financial & Commercial Group
On behalf of the Home Office Police Powers and Protection Unit (PPPU)

2 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848
E-mail: Info.Access@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk
[name and email address redacted]
Our Ref: 14551

09 September 2010

Dear [redacted],

Thank you for your e-mail of 24 March, 2010 in which you ask for the following information

1. On what date or dates has the Home Secretary Alan Johnson had meetings with one or both of the McCanns?

2. Who else was present at these meetings: in particular, was any lawyer or other adviser for the McCanns present?

3. On what dates did meetings take place between one or both of the McCanns and staff of the Home Office?

4. Please identify all the staff who met with the McCanns and again identify whether the McCanns had legal or other representatives with them.

5. On what date did the McCanns first approach the Home Office asking for a review or re-investigation by a British police force into Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Is the Home Office carrying out what the Daily Telegraph called 'a scoping exercise' to evaluate what form any review or re-investigation into Madeleine's disappearance may take' and, if so, on what date did that scooping exercise commence?

7. Why, according to the press, was Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Mr Jim Gamble, given the role of advising the Home Office as to which police force should carry out any review or re-investigation?

8. On what date did the Home Secretary ask Mr Gamble to perform this role?

9. On what date did Mr Gamble make his recommendation?

10. Did he, as reported, recommend West Yorkshire Police to carry out a review or re-investigation?

11. Has West Yorkshire Police, as reported, been asked to carry out a review or re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

12. If so, what is the brief or remit that the Home Office has given to West Yorkshire Police?

Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) and we can now provide you with a substantive response to your request.

I can confirm that the then Home Secretary met Mr and Mrs McCann in October 2009. Also present were two members of the Minister's Private Office and a Home Office Official. There were no subsequent meetings between Home Office Ministers or Home Office officials and Mr and Mrs McCann or any representative acting on their behalf, between then and the date of your letter.

I confirm that the Home Office holds some information relevant to remaining parts of your request but that, other than the information provided above, we consider that information to be exempt from disclosure under sections 31(1)(a) and (b), s.40(2) and s36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

Furthermore, we neither confirm nor deny that we hold any further information by virtue of Section 23(5) – information relating to an organisation listed in Section 23(3) of the Act. Section 23 confers an absolute exemption from our duty under section 1(1)(a) of the Act and does not require any further consideration. This response should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested is or is not held by the Home Office.

The general policy of the Home Office is not to disclose to a third party, personal information about another person. Section 40(2) of the FOI relates to the handling of personal information under the Data Protection Act. The Home Office has obligations under that Act, and in law generally, to protect the personal data that it holds. Mr and Mrs McCann would have had a legitimate expectation that any meeting with the Home Secretary was a private meeting. We have therefore, concluded that such information as you have requested which relates to Mr and Mrs McCann’s participation in the meeting and any views or opinions expressed, is exempt from disclosure under section 40(2) of the FOI, on the grounds that the such disclosure would breach the first Data Protection Principle in that it would constitute unfair processing of their personal data. The same exemption applies in relation to the details of Home Office officials present at the meeting. Section 40(2) is an absolute exemption and does not require any further consideration.

Section 31(1)(a) provides that information is exempt if its disclosure would or would be likely to prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, and section 31(1)(b) if it would potentially prejudice the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and (in both cases) the public interest falls in favour of applying the exemption.

Sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) apply to information which, in the reasonable opinion of a qualified person, would if disclosed, be likely to inhibit the free and frank provision of advice, or the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation. Section 36 is also subject to the supporting arguments of a public interest test.

Consideration of the public interest test in relation to these elements of the Act is detailed in 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 the reference number at the top of this letter:

Information Access Team
Home Office
Ground Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

Alternatively you can e-mail:

foirequests@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response. 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.

I apologise for the very long delay in replying to your request owing to the need to apply and fully consider the public interest test in this case.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Lister

Information Access Consultant

Freedom of Information Request: Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), 05 October 2011
Freedom of Information Request: Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) whatdotheyknow.com

5 October 2011

From: Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

Dear Mr Jackson

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2011090001190

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 07/09/2011. I note you seek access to the following information:

Under the freedom of information request I would like you to

Firstly: provide the information which was previously requested by ITV News (Case number 2010010005025) with regard to the disappearance of Madeline Mccann. Their request was to acquire any material, correspondence that were conducted with the portugese police during 2007.

Secondly: I would like to receive copies of any other freedom of information requests which were made by news agencies or journalists with regard to the disappearance of Madeline Mccann. Either if they received information or did not, I would like to receive details of their request.

Thirdly: please provide details of any other freedom of information requests which have been made in relation to the disappearance of Madeline Mccann.

Redefined on 19 September 2011 as:

I am requesting the information which was released under request 2010010005025 and I am also seeking copies of any requests and their responses from other organisations or people.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the Specialist Crime Directorate - Homicide and Serious Crime Command.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

Please find attached information pursuant to your request above.

As of 08 September 2011, the MPS had received three requests for information regarding The Madeline McCann review. Please find them attached to this reponse. Please note that only two requests were answered and the third was withdrawn by the applicant, therefore, no response was prepared.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email or contact me on telephone number 020 7230 2003 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Beaumont
SCD Information Manager



Request and response 1

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 27th January 2010 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on the same date. I note you seek access to the following information:

ITV news would like to acquire:

1) Any material or correspondence that were conducted with the portugese police during 2007.

2) Any correspondence that either Leicestershire police or the MET Police had with the Home Office in relation to Madeline's disappearance.

3) Transcripts of any interviews that were held with the McCanns or other witnesses.

4) Any information that you now consider no longer part of an ongoing investigation.

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the Specialist Crime Directorate SCD).

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request, therefore, the information you have requested is not held by the MPS.

For your information the publication strategy for material relating to Operation Task is published on the Leicestershire Constabulary website.

http://www.leics.police.uk/files/librarydocuments/op-task-publication-strategy.pdf



Request and response 2

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 02/08/2011. I note you seek access to the following information:

Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Questions - Madeleine McCann Review Team

Please answer the following questions in relation to the Madeleine McCann Review Team:

1. What is the precise remit of the Review Team?
2. When was that remit agreed?
3. Who decided the remit?
4. When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented ?
5. On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that "Scotland Yard's new investigation is being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the force's most experienced detectives". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is in overall command of this Review.
6. On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that "Scotland Yard said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, would be the senior investigating officer in the case". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the case.
7. On 15 May 2011, the Independent on Sunday said that "Mr. Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, Homicide and Serious Crimes Command (HSCC), operational command unit commander." Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the person in overall charge of the HSCC".
8. On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to answer any correspondence. Please state whether or not this is the case.
9. Please state whether, if evidence or other information is sent to the Madeleine McCann Review Team, any acknowledgement of the receipt of that information will be given.
10. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its review? If so, when is it?
11. Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the Metropolitan Police Authority?

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the Specialist Crime Directorate - Homicide and Serious Crime Command.

RESULT OF SEARCHES

The searches located information relevant to your request.

DECISION

I have today decided to:

Answer questions 5, 6 , 7, 10 and 11 in full

To refuse questions 8 and 9 by virtue of section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (The Act) as an invalid request.

To exempt questions 1, 2, 3 and 4 by virtue of section 30 (1)(a)(b)(c) and section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this email.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The following questions have been responded to in full:

At question 5 you asked: On 14 May 2011, the Daily Telegraph said that "Scotland Yard's new investigation is being overseen by Commander Simon Foy, one of the force's most experienced detectives". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is in overall command of this Review.

At Question 6 you asked: On 15 May 2011, the Daily Record said that " Scotland Yard said Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, would be the senior investigating officer in the case". Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the senior investigating officer in the case.

At question 7 you asked: On 15 May 2011, the Independent on Sunday said that "Mr. Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, Homicide and Serious Crimes Command (HSCC), operational command unit commander." Please either confirm that, or provide information as to who is the person in overall charge of the HSCC".

The MPS response is: The senior officer with oversight of the review is Commander Simon Foy. Detective Chief Inspector (DCI) Andy Redwood is the Senior Investigating Officer. DCI Redwood reports to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell.

At question 10 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a deadline for completing its review? If so, when is it?

The MPS response is: The review team does not have a deadline for the completion of its review.

At question 11 you asked: Does the Madeleine McCann Review Team have a budget? If so, what is it? Do the funds allocated to this Review Team come from the Home Office or from the Metropolitan Police Authority?

The MPS response is: The MPS has allocated a team to deal with this and the Home Office have agreed to reimburse this cost. This is reviewed on a quarterly basis.

The following questions have been refused on the grounds that they do not constitute a valid request under the Act:

At question 8 you asked: On 20 and 22 July 2011, an officer from the Intelligence Section of the Madeleine McCann Team, Sam, Pay No. 220629, stated that the policy of the Team was not to answer any correspondence. Please state whether or not this is the case.

At question 9 you asked: Please state whether, if evidence or other information is sent to the Madeleine McCann Review Team, any acknowledgement of the receipt of that information will be given.

The MPS response is: I have decided to refuse access to the information you have requested under the provisions of Section 8(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Act.

A request under the Act is required by statute to be legible and capable of being used for subsequent reference. After careful consideration, I have decided that your request does not meet this requirement as I am unable to ascertain what recorded information you have requested, as defined by Section 8(2)(c).

To enable us to meet your request could you please resubmit your application in accordance with the above requirements. If for any reason you are unable to do so, please contact me for assistance or seek assistance from any other available source.

I attach an excerpt from the Information Commissioner's website which may assist you in composing any future Freedom of Information requests.

What can I request under the Freedom of Information Act?

You have the right to request any information held by public authorities. The Act allows access to recorded information, such as emails, meeting minutes, research or reports held by public authorities in England, Northern Ireland and Wales and some authorities located in Scotland.

You have not made a request for recorded information which may be held by the MPS but questions which require a confirmation of a statement. You will need to be specific as to the recorded information you require.

We will consider your resubmitted request upon receipt as long as it meets the requirements stated above. You will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject to the information not being exempt.

The following questions are exempt by virtue of Section 30 (1 )(a)(b)(c) and
Section 31(1 )(a)(b)(c) of the Act:

Please see the legal annex for the sections of the Act referred to in this email.

At question 1 you asked: What is the precise remit of the Review Team?

At question 2 you asked: When was that remit agreed?

At question 3 you asked: Who decided the remit?

At question 4 you asked: When completed, to whom will the Review Report be presented?

The MPS response is: This information is exempt by virtue of Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)
and Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act

Constituents of this information attract Section 30 and other constituents attract Section 31 of the Act. It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30 & 31 to the same pieces of information.

Under Section 30(1 )(a)(i)(ii)(b)(c) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold
information if it was obtained or recorded for the purposes of investigations, criminal proceedings or civil proceedings. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future reviews. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

Under Section 31(1) (a) (b) (c) of the Act Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release could compromise Law Enforcement. In this case the information requested relates to an ongoing review. Disclosing specific details of a review could potentially impact and undermine any current or future criminal and /or civil proceedings. This exemption can be applied after evidencing the Harm, which could be caused by its release and following completion of a Public Interest Test (PIT). The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the 'Public Interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.

This email serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Act .

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can be answered.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

I have considered your request for information within the provisions set out by the Act. I have addressed your request in order to both confirm if the requested information is held by the MPS and then to provide this information to you. Where I have been unable to provide the requested information to you, I have explained my decision in accordance with Section 17 of the Act.

Evidence of Harm

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.

Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives, however, in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals, or any possible criminal and / or civil process.

Information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity, as it could have a detrimental effect on a review and the operational effectiveness of the MPS and it's ability to fulfil its core function of law enforcement.

High profile reviews, such as this one, are highly emotive and the manner in which they are conducted are usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Public Interest Test

Public interest considerations favouring disclosure

Disclosure of this information would enlighten members of the public as to the action taken by the MPS in this investigation. This may go some way to promoting awareness, accountability and would reinforce the MPS's commitment to openness and transparency. Release of this information would assist in any public debate on the MPS's action during this investigation and would demonstrate the willingness of the MPS to be open and transparent with the public showing what procedures are carried out.

Public interest considerations favouring non-disclosure

Information relating to an ongoing review will rarely be disclosed and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure. In this case, release of the requested information could allow individuals to use the information contained in the remit to undermine the methodology and techniques employed by the MPS and impede current /future investigations. Release of the remit and the other details could inform suspects of the progress of the review and allow them to use the information contained in it for criminal activities and to avoid justice.

Balancing Test

After weighing up the competing interests I have determined that the disclosure of the above information would not be in the public interest. I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh disclosing information relating to your request for information about the remit of The Madeleine McCann Review. The MPS will rarely disclose information relating to an ongoing review as to do so could adversely harm that investigation.

Legal Annex

Section 17 of the Act provides:

(1) A public authority which, in relation to any request for information, is to any extent relying on a claim that any provision in part II relating to the duty to confirm or deny is relevant to the request or on a claim that information is exempt information must, within the time for complying with section 1(1), give the applicant a notice which-
(a) states the fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question, and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Section 8(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a request is to be treated as made in writing where the text of the request-
(a) is transmitted by electronic means,
(b) is received in legible form, and
(c) is capable of being used for subsequent reference.
Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of-
(a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained-
(i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or
(ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it,
(b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct, or
(c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.
Section 31(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Act provides:

(1) Information which is not exempt information by virtue of section 30 is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice-
(a) the prevention or detection of crime,
(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders,
(c) the administration of justice


Request and response 3 (withdrawn)

Freedom of Information Act Request Reference No:

1. Tasks performed, or been performed, by MET Police, about Madeleine McCann kidnapping investigation (that ocurred in Praia da Luz, Portugal, May 3, 2007).
2. MET Police plans and/or future developments to continue searching for Madeleine McCann and/or her kidnapper(s).



PDF Downloads

pdf logo

Request and response 1.doc.pdf (37K)

click here to download file

pdf logo

Request and response 2.doc.pdf (342K)

click here to download file

pdf logo

Request and response 3 withdrawn.doc.pdf (13K)

click here to download file

With thanks to Nigel at McCann Files

TO HELP KEEP THIS SITE ON LINE PLEASE CONSIDER

Site Policy Sitemap

Contact details

Website created by © Pamalam