Thames Valley Police Reference No: RFI2011000175
The issue is important since it helps to clarify where the "concealment of evidence" in relation to fingerprint evidence arises.
If Thames Valley Police communicated the fingerprint evidence to the Hutton Inquiry then the ultimate responsibility for the concealment of that evidence lies with Lord Hutton and counsel to the Inquiry.
If Thames Valley Police withheld the fingerprint evidence then that organisation's culpability regarding "concealment of evidence" is evident.
The text of the Internal Review Request is here:
Mr. Hopgood,
I write to request an internal review of your initial decision.
I do not accept that my request was "vexatious".
My request asks for information that, so far as I'm aware, neither myself nor anybody else has previously requested.
Additionally, you seem to have failed appropriately to have taken into account the time span since any previous FOI requests by myself which have been answered. In doing that it appears to me that your decision is wrong in terms of the Act.
Further, the seeming declaration in the email of 1st April 2011 and previous correspondence that any question from me about the "subject" of Dr. David Kelly's death is "vexatious" seems to me to be a transparent attempt at obstructing the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act by yourself and Thames Valley Police.
To the best of my understanding there is no power given in the Act to declare a "subject" off limits. It seems to me that this is what you are seeking to do.
Additionally, as I have expressed in previous correspondence, I consider that some members of staff in Thames Valley Police in 2003 and in 2010-11 may have "perverted the course of justice" with respect to the concealment of what I believe to be the murder of Dr. David Kelly. I view your obstructiveness with respect to Freedom of Information requests in that context.
You are, I believe, aware that I have formally written to the Chief Officers of Thames Valley Police regarding the matter of the perceived perverting the course of justice both in 2003 and 2010-11.
In that context I believe that I have a "proper or justified cause" as expressed on page 2 of the ICO guidance to which you refer. ( http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/freedom_of_information/detailed_specialist_guides/awareness_guidance_22_vexatious_and_repeated_requests_final.pdf )
Since, in my opinion, the evidence indicates that Thames Valley Police is engaging in the process of perverting the course of justice in relation to a murder, it seems to me that a powerful case can be made on appeal to the Information Commissioner that I have a "proper or justified cause".
In the interests of transparency and public accountability, I anticipate that the text of this email will be posted on my "Chilcot's Cheating Us" blog: http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/ or my "Come Clean on Kelly" blog, http://comecleanonkelly.blogspot.com/ .
I look forward to your reply.
Thank you
(Dr) Andrew Watt
No comments:
Post a Comment