Re: A new Freedom of Information Act request to the Home Office about the selective leaking to the media of a confidential report byJim Gamble, former head of CEOP
Post Tony Bennett Today at 7:44 pm
I have today received a response from the Home Office refusing my request in its entirety.
The reason given is Section 23 of the FoI Act and I've highlighted this and other relevant parts of the Home Office's reply.
On this occasion I have decided to exercise my right to a review and my letter today to the Home Office FoI Act Section askiong for a review is below.
To all reading this post, may I once again emphasise the truly extraordinary way that this one man - Jim Gamble - is and has been joined at the hip with the McCann Team, and has been since Week One when he asked holidaymakers who had been in Praia da Luz to send him their holiday photos. There is much more about this on this forum if you use the search facility under 'Gamble'.
Herewith:
a) the Home Office refusal letter and
b) my request for a review:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
HOME OFFICE REFUSAL LETTER
Mr A Bennett
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]14 October 2014
Dear Mr Bennett,
Freedom of Information request reference: 32799
Thank you for your e-mail of 2 September concerning a Freedom of Information request related to a scoping report of 2010 by Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) about the Madeleine McCann case. Your request has been handled as a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
You asked for the following information:
1. What other persons or organisations or agencies were asked if they could carry out this scoping exercise, before Jim Gamble was approached?
2. On what date was Jim Gamble approached to carry out this exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
4. Was any payment made to either CEOP or to Jim Gamble personally for carrying out this report; if so, what was the fee?
5. Is the report marked or treated as confidential?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
In relation to your questions above, we are able to confirm that whilst a report is held by the Home Office, it is exempt from disclosure under Section 23 (1) of the Act. This states that information held by a public authority is exempt from disclosure if it was directly or indirectly supplied, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in Section 23(3).
Section 23 is an absolute exemption and there is no requirement to consider the public interest. Further details of this exemption are set out in Annex A.
The Home Office does not comment on any alleged leaks of official information, and we do not comment on specific leak enquiries or outcomes of any specific investigations.
If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting a complaint within two months to the address below, quoting reference 32799. If you ask for an internal review, it would be helpful if you could say why you are dissatisfied with the response.
Information Access Team
Home Office Ground Floor,
Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
LONDON SW1P 4DF
e-mail:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]As part of any internal review the Department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. If you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you would have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Yours sincerely,
I. Barton
Police Integrity and Powers Unit
Annex A
Section 23 - exemption
23 Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters.
(1) Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).
(2) The bodies referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—
(a) the Security Service,
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service,
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters,
(d) the special forces,
(e) the Tribunal established under section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000,
(f) the Tribunal established under section 7 of the Interception of Communications Act 1985,
(g) the Tribunal established under section 5 of the Security Service Act 1989,
(h) the Tribunal established under section 9 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994,
(i) the Security Vetting Appeals Panel,
(j) the Security Commission,
(k) the National Criminal Intelligence Service,
(l) the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
(m) the National Crime Agency (formerly Serious Organised Crime Agency).
REPLY FROM TONY BENNETT
Dear Home Office,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Home Office's handling of my FOI request 'This request is about factual matters relating to a report prepared by Jim Gamble, former boss of CEOP, about the Madeleine McCann case'.
The Madeleine McCann case is of exceptional national and even international interest. Concern is expressed by many about the response of various government agencies and British police forces to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Referring to my request for information, every single question I asked relates to matters already fully in the public domain.
Moreover, there has unquestionably been a 'leak' to the media of part of the contents of Mr Gamble's report. The question of how and for what purpose this leak occurred is manifestly a matter of public interest. You have conceded that this is a highly confidential report - and it follows therefore that its partial disclosure, presumably with the consent of the Home Secretary, is a matter of public concern.
I have carefully considered Section 23(1) and as a result withdraw my request for some of the information.
However, in the light of my comments above, I consider it reasonable for the Home Office to disclose information clearly held by the Home Office in answer to the following questions:
2. On what date was Jim Gamble first approached to carry out this [scoping] exercise?
3. On what date did Jim Gamble complete his report and/or submit it to the Home Secretary?
6. If the report is confidential, has the Home Office authorised partial release of its contents to the media?
7. If it has so authorised such release, (a) who authorised the release of this information and (b) on what date was it authorised?
8. If any release of its contents has not been authorised by the Home Office, (a) has the Home Office begun an enquiry into who leaked this information and (b), if so, on what date did the leak enquiry begin?
9. Specifically, did the Home Office authorise Jim Gamble to disclose some of his report's contents to the media; if so, who authorised this disclosure and on what date was such authority given?
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Yours faithfully,
Anthony Bennett
