In early 2007, we sent Sussex Police an Freedom of Information Request for the Police Complaints Authority’s report into the murder of Richard Taylor. He had been murdered in 1996 by an unknown person thought to be a hitman by the name of Paul Jones. The reasons for his murder are still unknown and surrounded in conspiracy theories. For an excellent background to the case, consult this Daily Mail piece by Bob Woffinden in April 1999.
In the course of the original investigation, Richard Taylor’s wife and daughter—Linda Henderson & Amanda London-Williams—were arrested and later charged with his murder. At the trial, the prosecution offered no evidence and they were freed. The PCA—later to become the IPCC—compiled a report into the investigation. This was never in the public domain but it is reported to be highly critical of the police enquiry. It was reported in Parliament that the original investigating officer—Det Supt Paul Westwood—would have faced disciplinary action had he not retired from the force.
You may feel this report from the PCA would be important to Sussex Police. You would expect them to have a copy. You would expect them to use the report to judge their improvement against the criticism contained in report. Sadly not, here is the response from Sussex Police when we requested a copy of the report:
I write in connection with your request for information concerning a report for the PCA into the murder of Richard Watson, which was received by Sussex Police on 5 January. [2007]
This is to inform you that despite exhaustive searches I can find no evidence that Sussex Police currently holds a document of the description specified in your request. Accordingly, I have determined that at this time for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, information to which you seek access is not held by Sussex Police.
It is clear that we received such a document, not least because I have spoken to officers who remember reading it, and because I have found 2 of what are clearly at least 58 Appendices to it because they are labelled 56 and 58 respectively. However those 2 Appendices are merely copies of Sussex Police documents from the original investigation.If we did subsequently find the copy of the report, we would of course have to consider exempting part or all of it from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. At this stage, without in any way pre-judging the outcome, the exemptions likely to fall to be at least considered are contained in;
Quite shocking that they lost it and hardly does anything for public confidence in the force. We then wrote to the Met asking for a copy of the report they compiled for the PCA. Sadly they were unable to provide us with a copy but at least they still had a copy. Their response is after the break.
Response of Met Police to FOIA request:
I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 7 February 2007 and further to my email of 7 March 2007 advising you of the extended response date of 2 May 2007. I note you seek access to the following information:
A copy of the report prepared by the Metropolitan Police Service for the Police Complaints Authority regarding Sussex Police’s investigation into the murder of Richard Watson in December 1996.
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 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) within which a request for information can be answered.
The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (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, communicate it 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 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
In relation to my first duty under the Act, which is to confirm if the requested information is held by the MPS, I can confirm that the requested report is held by the MPS.
In relation to my second duty under the Act, which is to provide the requested report to you, I have carefully considered releasing this document and have found that I am not permitted under the Act to disclose this report to you.
DECISION
Having located and considered the relevant information, I am afraid that I am not required by statute to release the information requested. This letter serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
REASONS FOR DECISION
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.
In considering your request, I have found that the following exemptions apply to the information requested.
Section 44(1)(b) – Information covered by Prohibitions on Disclosure: Absolute Exemption
Under Section 44(1)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release is incompatible with any Community Obligation.
I have applied this exemption in that the murder of Mr Richard Watson is unsolved. To release information in connection with this investigation, at this time, would impede any future investigation into the murder of Mr Watson. Release would also bias any future criminal trial. This would be in breach Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which entitles any person charged with a criminal offence to a fair trial.
This exemption is both absolute and class based. I am therefore not required to complete a ‘Public Interest Test’ (PIT) in applying this exemption.
Section 40(2) & (3): Personal Information: Absolute Exemption
Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Public Authorities are able to withhold data where its release would identify any living individual and would breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998.
I have applied this exemption in that the requested report contains the personal data of living individuals namely witnesses, suspects and other parties connected to this investigation. Release of this information would identify those individuals, breaching the principles of the Data Protection Act 1998.
Under principle one and principle six of the Data Protection Act 1998, personal data must be processed by an organisation fairly and in accordance with the rights of the data subject. Under principle two, personal data must be obtained for specified and lawful purposes and must not be processed in any way that is not compatible with those purposes
To release the personal data of those persons that have contributed in confidence to a police investigation, would be unfair to those persons and in breach of the agreed use of that information. Release would also be unfair to those persons as no agreement to publicly release their personal data had been made with them when the information was obtained.
This exemption is both absolute and class based. I am therefore not required to complete a PIT in applying this exemption.
Section 30(2)(a)(iii): Investigations and Proceedings by Public Authorities: Qualified Exemption
Under Section 30(2)(a)(iii) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Public Authorities are able to withhold information that was obtained or recorded by an authority for the purpose of its function of ascertaining whether any person has failed to comply with the law and/or is responsible for any conduct which is improper. This section of the Act also allows information to be withheld if it has been held in connection with an authority’s function of ascertaining a person’s fitness or competence in relation to any profession or other activity which they are authorised to conduct.
I have applied this exemption in that the requested report was written by the MPS for the purpose of the investigation into the handling by Sussex Police of the murder of Mr Richard Watson.
This exemption is both qualified and class based. I am therefore required to complete a PIT. The purpose of the PIT is to establish whether the ‘Public Interest’ lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information.
Section 31(1)(a) & (b): Law Enforcement: Qualified Exemption
Under Section 31(1) (a) and (b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention and detection of crime and/or the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.
I have applied this exemption in that the requested report is the product of the MPS investigation into the handling by Sussex Police of the unsolved murder of Mr Richard Watson. This report contains details of police lines of enquiry, police intelligence, suspects, witnesses and investigative methodology, where release would prejudice the ability of Sussex Police to conduct any future investigation into the murder of Mr Watson.
Release of police investigative methods/techniques would also compromise the ability of the Police Service as a whole, to investigate serious crime, as the police strategy for investigating such crime would be widely available.
This exemption is both qualified and prejudice based. I am therefore required to complete a PIT. I am also required to demonstrate the likely prejudice that would result from disclosure.
Section 38(1)(a) – Health and Safety: Qualified Exemption
Under Section 38(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Public Authorities are able to withhold information that would, or would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.
I have applied this exemption in that the release of the requested report would be likely to have a detrimental effect on the mental well-being of those persons involved in this investigation. The requested report contains details of witnesses, suspects and police officers, both serving and retired, that have contributed to this investigation. There would be no reasonable expectation on behalf of those persons, that their personal information and details of their personal contribution to this investigation, would be released publicly. The release of this information would therefore be likely to cause distress to those parties that have contributed in confidence to this investigation.
This exemption is both qualified and prejudice based. I am therefore required to complete a PIT and demonstrate the harm that would result from disclosure.
Section 30(2)(b) – Obtaining of Information from Confidential Sources: Qualified Exemption
Under Section 30(2)(b) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Public Authorities are able to withhold information if it was obtained or recorded by the authority for the purpose of its function of obtaining information from confidential sources.
I have applied this exemption in that the requested report contains police intelligence and information obtained from witnesses. The information provided by these sources is obtained in confidence and upon an understanding that the information provided will be used for a policing purpose. The public release of this information would be in breach of the confidence associated with its provision and would impede channels of communication with future police sources of information.
This exemption is both qualified and class based. I am therefore required to complete a PIT.
Please find the PIT considerations that I have identified and considered in relation to your request for information.
Public Interest Considerations Favouring Disclosure
Accountability
Sussex Police and the MPS are public authorities and should be held to account for their actions. The public release of the report prepared by the MPS for the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) regarding the handling by Sussex Police of the investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson, would reinforce the MPS commitment as an open and transparent organisation. Release of this report would also demonstrate the way in which Sussex Police conducted its initial investigation into the murder of Mr Watson and the findings of the MPS review of Sussex Police’s murder investigation.
Public Awareness/Debate
There has been considerable public and media interest, speculation and debate about the circumstances surrounding the murder of Mr Richard Watson. There has also been significant public and media interest in the findings of the MPS review of Sussex Police’s handling of this incident. There is a strong public interest in making accurate information available to the public that would inform and enhance the accuracy of public debate.
Actions of Public Officials
The requested report is the product of a highly publicised inquiry that centres around the actions of the police officers that investigated the murder of Mr Richard Watson. Where the actions of the public officials are examined, there is a sizeable public interest in making the details of those findings public. Release of this report would ensure that the authority in question is held to account for the actions of its officers.
Public Participation
The Police Service is committed to building closer relationships with the communities it polices, of which an important part is to share information of public interest. The Police Service is also committed to learning from experience and improving its performance, of which acceptance of criticism and learning from mistakes are integral to this process. The release of the requested report would demonstrate an open relationship between the Police Service and the public and would show that the Police Service is willing to accept criticism and improve performance by listening and responding.
Accountability for Public Funds
Where public funds are being spent, there is a significant public interest in making information available that would demonstrate the way in which those resources have been allocated. In this case, release of the requested report would demonstrate the way in which Sussex Police allocated resources in investigating the murder of Mr Watson. Release would also demonstrate the way in which resources have been allocated by the MPS in conducting its inquiry. This of particular importance considering the public and media interest in this incident.
Public Confidence
The general public expect the highest standards of professionalism in the delivery of policing services by the Police Service. The release of a report that would demonstrate the improvement in performance made by the Police Service in investigating serious crime, would improve public confidence in the Police Service.
Public Interest Considerations Favouring Non-Disclosure
Investigations
The requested report is a detailed examination of the Sussex Police investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson. The report examines aspects of the investigation which include analysis of police lines of enquiry, police intelligence, suspects and witnesses. This information was obtained by Sussex Police for the purpose of investigating the murder of Mr Watson. This murder remains unsolved. The release of the requested report, would, at this time, reveal the detail of the Sussex Police investigation, prejudicing any future investigation into this incident.
Efficient and Effective Conduct of the MPS
During the course of any investigation, enquires are made to secure evidence that may lead to a conviction. These enquires are made throughout the investigation and are based upon proven investigative methods as well as the judgement and experience of the officer in charge of the investigation. The Police Service is reliant upon these investigative techniques to conduct its investigations. The public release of the investigative techniques that were employed by Sussex Police during the course of this murder investigation and by the MPS, in reviewing this investigation, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to conduct investigations into serious crime. This would not be in the public interest.
Information Provided in Confidence
During the course of this investigation, information has been provided by a number of parties in order to assist the police in their enquiries. This information was provided in confidence and upon the understanding that its use is restricted to the police investigation. There would be no reasonable expectation on behalf of those that have provided information to the police, that this information would be released publicly. Release of the information provided in confidence in connection with this investigation would therefore be in breach of the confidence associated with its provision and would be unfair to those parties that have provided it.
Fair Treatment of Individuals
The investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson was a complicated investigation that has already caused considerable distress to the family and friends of Mr Watson. It would be unfair to those parties to release information that would cause further distress to them. This investigation has also received considerable media coverage. It would be unfair to those parties connected to this investigation, to release information that may lead to further speculation about the circumstances surrounding the murder of Mr Watson.
Fair Treatment of the Family of Mr Watson
The investigation into the murder of Mr Watson remains unsolved. It would be unfair and damaging to the family of Mr Watson to release information that would unduly prejudice any future investigation into this incident.
Flow of Information to the Service
The Police Service is reliant upon the provision of information to effectively investigate whether a crime has taken place. This exchange of information is made on the basis that the information received by the Police Service is confidential and restricted to a policing purpose. The public release of information that has been obtained for a policing purpose, would inhibit the ability of the Police Service to obtain information in connection with future investigations, as those that provide information would not expect or approve, of the public release of the information they have provided in confidence.
Justice to an Individual
The investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson is unsolved. It would improper and unjust to release information that would compromise any future investigation into the circumstances of Mr Watson’s murder. The public interest is best served by ensuring that the best chance of securing a conviction is maintained and that individuals are brought to justice.
Public Safety
The requested report forms part of a highly complicated investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson. This investigation remains unsolved. The release of information that would prejudice the ability of Sussex Police to apprehend any person in connection with this investigation, would reduce the likelihood of any person(s) guilty of this offence being brought to justice. This would have an adverse effect on public safety and would not be in the public interest.
Internal Investigations
The requested report was written by the MPS for the purpose of its investigation into the handling by Sussex Police of the murder of Mr Richard Watson. The purpose of this report was to review Sussex Police’s investigation and to provide recommendations where practice could be improved. This internal investigation was supervised by the PCA and was written strictly for the purpose of investigating Sussex Police’s handling of the murder investigation. The public release of this report would not be in keeping with the terms of reference of this investigation or the restricted use of Police Service internal investigation reports.
Information in the Public Domain
A number of the key findings of the MPS investigation into the Sussex Police investigation have already been released publicly following the investigation. The Police Service has as such, responded to the public interest in this investigation by releasing information of public interest. Please find the internet link below to the Parliament website where details of the findings of the requested report can be found. However for your convenience, I enclose a copy of the questions answered by the then Home Secretary, Mr Charles Clarke in relation to this investigation.
Internet links to the Parliament Website
http://www.parliament.uk/index.cfm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmhansrd/vo010122/text/10122w25.htm
Questions Addressed by Home Secretary about the Murder of Richard Watson
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will request a report from the Chief Constable of Sussex Police on the action it proposes to take following the Police Complaints Authority investigation into matters arising from the murder of Richard Watson.
Mr. Charles Clarke: I am advised by the Chief Constable of the Sussex Police that a second investigation into the murder of Richard Watson is under way but that he cannot comment on it at this stage as it might interfere with progress. I am assured that lessons from the first investigation will be learned and that new processes and procedures will be followed in the new investigation.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the findings of the Police Complaints Authority investigation into the complaint made by Linda Watson and Amanda Lord-Williams.
Mr. Charles Clarke: The Metropolitan police carried out an investigation in to the complaint made by Linda Watson and Amanda London-Williams; the investigation was supervised by the Police Complaints Authority. I am satisfied that the investigation was thorough and that it identified properly the systemic failures which led to the shortfalls and errors in the original murder investigation. The main responsibility for the failures rested with the senior investigating officer who was found to be guilty of neglect of duty. He cannot be subject to disciplinary proceedings as he retired from the Sussex police.
EVALUATION
You have requested that I provide you with disclosure of the report prepared by the MPS for the PCA regarding Sussex Police’s investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson in December 1996. In considering your request, I have carefully examined the importance of holding public authorities to account for their actions. This has been of particular importance when considering your request, owing to the significant public and media interest in the actions of the police arising from this incident. I have also considered the importance of releasing information that would facilitate accurate and informed public debate in respect of this incident and encourage the public to become more involved in the actions of the Police Service.
In considering whether to disclose the requested report to you, I have also evaluated the harm that release of the requested report would cause. I have carefully considered the impact that the release of information held in connection with an unsolved murder inquiry, would have on any future investigation. I have considered the importance of protecting the investigative techniques employed by the Police Service, both in connection with this inquiry and those that will be employed in investigating any future investigation into similar serious crimes. I have also examined the right to privacy of those persons connected to this inquiry and the importance of protecting those persons involved in this inquiry from any further distress.
The circumstances surrounding Sussex Police’s initial response and investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson and the subsequent investigation by the MPS into Sussex Police’s handling of the investigation, have attracted considerable media and public interest, speculation and debate. Owing to the high profile nature of this incident, there is a strong public interest in releasing information to the public that would demonstrate the way in which Sussex Police conducted its initial investigation into the murder of Mr Watson. There is arguably a stronger public interest in releasing the findings of the MPS investigation into Sussex Police’s handling of the initial investigation, as this would demonstrate to the public that improvement in performance has resulted as a product of this review. Release of this report would accordingly facilitate informed and accurate public debate about this incident, allowing for public scrutiny of the actions of Sussex Police.
In assessing your request, I have found that it is correct that the Police Service provide information to the public where release would not have an adverse effect on any future police investigation. Accordingly, I have provided you with the internet link to the Parliament website where information has already been released about the findings of the MPS report into Sussex Police’s handling of the investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson.
The MPS report examines the actions of Sussex Police in investigating the murder of Mr Watson. It is important that where the actions of public officials are questioned, that suitable information is provided to the appropriate agencies to enable the actions of public officials to be scrutinised. In this case, I have found that the MPS and the PCA were the appropriate appointed bodies, on behalf of the public, to review the actions of Sussex Police. I have also found that appropriate information has already been made available to the public in respect of the main findings of the MPS investigation.
In considering disclosure of the report to you, I have also considered the harm that such a disclosure would cause. As you are aware, any disclosure of information under the Act, is a public disclosure of information. That is, a release of information to one person under the Act demonstrates a willingness on behalf of a public authority, to disclose that information to any person, should a request be received. The requested report examines aspects of the Sussex Police investigation which includes analysis of police lines of enquiry, police intelligence, suspects and witnesses. If this information was disclosed, it would reveal the details of the Sussex Police investigation. This would clearly prejudice any future investigation into the murder of Mr Watson.
The requested report contains the detail of the investigative techniques employed by Sussex Police in investigating the murder of Mr Watson. The investigative techniques employed during the course of a murder investigation are used throughout the Police Service to investigate serious crime. The Police Service must protect these techniques to ensure that it is capable of investigating both this crime and any future serious crime. This information must also be protected so as not to afford any offender with a tactical advantage over the Police Service.
Much of the information provided during the course of this investigation, was provided to Sussex Police in confidence and upon the understanding that its use would be restricted to the police investigation. In examining this information, I have found that there would be no reasonable expectation on behalf of those persons that have provided information to the police, that this information would be released publicly. I have also found that release would impede both this investigation and future investigations as parties willing to provide information to the police, would no longer do so, as it would be likely that this information would be released publicly.
In examining your request, I have also considered the importance of withholding information that would cause undue distress to any person. The investigation into the murder of Mr Richard Watson was a complicated investigation that has already caused considerable distress to the family and friends of Mr Watson. It would be unfair to those parties to release information that would cause further distress to them. It would also be unjust and unfair to the family of Mr Watson to release information that would impede any future investigation into this incident.
Whilst the public are naturally interested in this inquiry, the case for refusing to release the requested report is both clear and compelling. The Police Service, in responding to the public interest in this inquiry, have appropriately placed the main findings of this report into the public domain. The resultant public interest therefore lies in further disclose of this report or withholding information that would hinder any future investigation into the murder of Mr Watson and future investigations into serious crime. The balance between further disclose or withholding of information must also be considered in view of the likely distress disclosure would cause to the family of Mr Watson.
Having carefully considered your request, I have found that the public interest is most clearly served by ensuring that where a serious crime has not been solved and any person(s) brought to justice, that information is withheld to ensure that the best chance of securing a conviction is maintained. I have also found that information should be withheld to protect the ability of the Police Service to conduct future investigations into serious crime and importantly, to protect the family of Mr Watson from further distress. Having considered and weighed up the competing interests raised by your request, I regret therefore, that I am unable to provide the requested report to you under these exemptions.
COMPLAINT RIGHTS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in the MPS.
If you are dissatisfied with this response please read the attached paper entitled Complaint Rights which explains how to make a complaint.
Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please contact me on [number] or at the address at the top of this letter, quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
[name]
Related posts:
- Police Data Security, Colin Gunn and the Stirlands Nottinghamshire Police have been criticised by an inquest for contributing...
- “Police are there as Public Servants” Events of the past week in HMP Britain have underlined...
- Grampian Police Officers Convicted There wimz3tbcxs seem to be problems with Grampian Police and its officers....
- Statistics: UK Police Taser Use on Children In response to our Freedom of Information request, the Home...
- Paedophile Police Officer: Questions Andrew Rowe, a former police officer with Staffordshire Constabulary, was...