Closed file at the National Archives - any advice on getting it opened?

Discussion in 'Research Material' started by Pete Wood, Sep 26, 2019.

  1. Pete Wood

    Pete Wood Member

    I have submitted a FOI request to have a file opened. It was denied (within an impressive 24 hours of me making the request).

    But I am aware that TV programmes, and newspapers, have gained access to files that were otherwise closed. So how does a mere member of the public get access to a closed file, please?

    Has anyone successfully argued for a file to be opened using the N/A complaints procedure?
     
  2. Charley Fortnum

    Charley Fortnum Dreaming of Red Eagles

    I'd say that a lot of it has to do with the nature of the file (and hence the probable reason for its continued closure).

    A number of files concerning early nuclear development were recently re-closed, I recall. I don't think you've a hope with those, for example, as there's a perceived security risk.

    Are you able to name the files--or at least the topic?

    It might be useful if the request had some kind of 'institutional support' for instance. I don't think they really like 'private researchers'.
     
  3. Pete Wood

    Pete Wood Member

    It was with regard to an unsolved murder which, my 'private' research leads me to believe, may be connected with the Blackout Ripper (all files open). This was the N/A response:

    Thank you for your enquiry of 26th September 2019 regarding a review of:

    MEPO 3/2193 - Murder of Mabel Church or Churchyard by person unknown at 225, Hampstead Road, NW1 on 13 October 1941

    We were required to consider a public interest test in this case. That is because some of the information in the document is covered by sections 31 and 38 of the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000. As a result, it was determined that this information should be withheld. We regret to say this means we cannot make this document open to you or to the public in general.

    Section 31(1) of the FOI Act exempts information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to prejudice (b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders or (c) the administration of justice.

    Section 38(1) (a) exempts information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual.

    A public interest test was considered in consultation with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). Please find below the arguments made in favour of and against the release of the information requested and the outcome of the public interest test.

    Arguments made in favour of disclosure

    Disclosure of the information contained within this record would demonstrate how the police go about investigating serious crime, in this instance the murder of a woman.

    The police service is accountable to the public it serves and it is in the common interest that information that demonstrates how it performs across the range of its duties is made available. However, this comes with the following caveats; such disclosures of information must not impede the police from discharging their lawful duties to detect and prevent crime, and identify, apprehend and bring offenders to justice; nor should disclosure infringe the rights of individuals.

    Arguments made in favour of non – disclosure

    This record contains information that, if released into the public domain, would prejudice a future investigation/prosecution.

    It also contains information the disclosure of which would cause substantial mental anguish to identified individuals within the file.

    Outcome of the public interest test

    Exemption from disclosure of the information in this piece is sought because publication may prejudice a future investigation and prosecution. This case meets criteria that indicates that it would be investigated in the future, if new evidence were adduced or a confession forthcoming. This is a crime of such seriousness that even 50 years after the event the police would still pursue an investigation should the opportunity arise. Disclosure of the file into the public domain may risk sending the message that the police consider the case 'closed’, which it is not, even after this period of time.

    It is not possible to identify particular information that might be released into the public domain without the risk of compromising any future police actions. Information that appears innocuous may have significance to an experienced investigator that is not immediately obvious to the lay reader; or may assume a new significance in the light of newly discovered evidence or developments in forensic or investigative techniques. The evolution of new scientific techniques, especially the technology of DNA, means that cases hitherto considered unsolvable, are being examined afresh. Increasingly police services throughout the country are setting up ‘cold case’ teams to review their case files on unsolved murders; in some instances, these unsolved murders date back to the 1940s.

    The premature release of this record into the public domain would likely be detrimental to any future investigation and subsequent prosecution. This record should remain closed under section 31, because disclosure of the information contained therein could be prejudicial a future investigation and prosecution with the result that a suspect may evade apprehension. Such an outcome would not be in the public interest.

    This record also contains information that would be likely to cause substantial mental anguish to identified individuals, who can be assumed still living, if disclosed into the public domain. This information should remain closed under section 38 (1) (a).

    Section 40

    Information within the record is also covered by the exemption at section 40 (2) of the FOI Act. This exempts personal information about a ‘third party’ (someone other than the requester), if revealing it would break the terms of Data Protection Legislation. Data Protection Legislation prevents personal information from release if it would be unfair or at odds with the reason why it was collected, or where the subject had officially served notice that releasing it would cause them damage or distress. Personal information must be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner as set out by Art. 5 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

    In this case, the exemption applies because the record contains the personal and the sensitive personal information of a number of identified individuals assumed to be still living, including addresses, witness statements, juvenile statements, medical history, details of personal relationships and antecedent histories. These individuals would have no expectation that this information would be made available by The National Archives in the public domain during their lifetimes; to do so would be unfair and would risk causing damage and distress, which would contravene the first data protection principle.

    If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request or the decision that has been reached, you have the right to ask for an internal review. Internal review requests must be submitted within two months of the date of this response and should be addressed to:

    Quality Manager
    Programme Management Office
    The National Archives
    Kew
    Richmond
    Surrey
    TW9 4DU

    complaints@nationalarchives.gov.uk

    Please mark your complaint clearly. You have the right to ask the Information Commissioner to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the Information Commissioner is likely to expect internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning her investigation.

    Yours sincerely,


    FOI Assessor
    Freedom of Information Centre
    Programme Management Office
    The National Archives
     
    CL1 likes this.
  4. Pete Wood

    Pete Wood Member

    There are no members of this family still alive. Any juveniles mentioned above, would now be close to 100 years old - but, again based on research using other 'open' files, I think this is a 'blanket reply' and that there were no juveniles connected with this case. Of course I can't be positive, until the file is opened.....

    The part of the reply I found most interesting was "This is a crime of such seriousness that even 50 years after the event the police would still pursue an investigation should the opportunity arise."

    This would suggest the Public Interest Test was carried out in the early 1990s. What are the chances of a living perpetrator, in his /her 90th year (at least) being prosecuted, today....??
     
  5. dbf

    dbf Moderatrix MOD

    I seem to remember ADM199 wrote to his MP when he encountered FOI refusals.
     
  6. horsapassenger

    horsapassenger Senior Member

    I would suggest appealing the response if you feel strongly and that will cause the initial refusal to be reconsidered, I have taken a case of refusal to disclose (by a Government Department) to the Information Commissioner and although they were forced to uphold the initial decision (a Section 23 refusal) the information I was seeking was quietly made available at the National Archives about a year later. I must say that it is surprising that they state that they conducted a public interest test of the case in conjunction with the MPS and yet were able to respond to you within 24 hours of your application!! This makes me inclined to agree with you that you have received a bog standard refusal without a proper consideration of the facts. Certain of the arguments against disclosure, such as identification of individuals, could be easily overcome by redaction of their names
     
  7. KevinBattle

    KevinBattle Senior Member

    You need to clarify your interest and reason for requesting this information.
    If you are intending to publish the information (if you were to access it) it might cause anguish to surviving relatives and their descendants.
    A dear friend of mine has a relative who committed crimes in the Victorian period which are occasionally aired sensationally in the Press, so I can see both aspects.

    If you have a genuine reason for research and can convince TNA of your integrity, then by all means respond back for a better adjudication.
    It does sound like a "Standard" catch-all refusal.

    If there is a genuine reason (and if much else is in the public domain) then the likely reason is that the Police have put a time embargo on, a standard procedure, so it's not necessarily the TNA refusing, they may be committed to refuse without the Met (or other) Police agreeing to release the requested information.

    I'm sure you're not going to go back like a bull in a china shop, first ascertain who by, and on what specific grounds, the information is being withheld, pointing out that there is little likelihood of a successful prosecution; that detection methods have moved on in the last 75 years and any other practical arguments. Once you know why, then you can decide what next.
     
  8. Old Git

    Old Git Harmless Curmudgeon

    For about five years or so I have been thwarted in some background research by the fact that three very large ledgers were missing from TNA. When I queried the absence of these ledgers, on several occasions, I was given a variety of responses.

    "The files have been missing for some time and we can't be sure if they were missing on transfer"

    and

    "It's possible the files were pinched by a member of the public in days previous when security was a bit lax"

    And

    "We have checked the stacks and the files do appear to be missing but we have kept your contact details and should they ever turn up we will be in touch".

    Eventually I tracked down a document that had been written using these ledgers as source (an internal history of the dept type deal) and once again I asked if it was possible that the ledgers were mis-filed with the documents that were being created for the history. Once again the TNA replied and said the files were missing from their intended repository and that they had checked in the alternate deprt filing and no they had not been mis-filed.

    So, they're missing and nothing to be done about it and that would have been that had I not thought that I might do my civic duty and inform the digital imaging department that the 'History' document was now the only surviving record (albeit partial) of what was in the original three ledgers and that it should be digitised at their earliest convenience. And this is where things get interesting, a few weeks later I get an email:

    "thank you very much for your recommendation but we've checked on the ledgers you mention and they are not missing, they are in fact where they ought to be and always have been. We note that there was an erroneous note on the database that these were missing but we have now amended that"

    No apology, no explanation and a sheepish "we note there was an erroneous note on the database" (no shit Einstein) So, the first three response appear to be total lies and it would seem that no-one even bothered to check until the Digital Imaging Team went and had a proper look. The interesting thing is that they always referred to them as files whilst I referred to them as 'Large Ledgers'. That should have been my first clue, but the fact that one of them thought a ledger the size of a small desk could be secreted out of the TNA (let alone three in series) should have been my second clue.

    The moral of the story is don't take the first answer you receive as gospel. Pester the feck out of them until they give you what you want. These are in the public archive and unless they have a clear cut case for keeping them closed, then keep pestering them. Complain about the decision and if that doesn't work go to your MP and write to the National Press. It is your right to see these files, they are public property!
     
  9. CL1

    CL1 116th LAA and 92nd (Loyals) LAA,Royal Artillery

    I have an ongoing see below current opening date is 2041

    I am writing to inform you that we are required to conduct a public interest test in relation to your request and we will let you know the result of this by 1 October 2019.

    This is because some of the information within this record is covered by a qualified exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

    When a qualified exemption applies we are required to consider whether it is in the public interest to release the information. However, if it is decided that the public interest would not be served by releasing the information we will explain the reasons for this.

    We will let you know the outcome of the public interest test as explained above. In the meantime, if you have any queries regarding this email please do not hesitate to contact us. Remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mr Chris Ransted

    FOI Researcher
    Freedom of Information Centre
    Programme Management Office
    The National Archives
     
  10. Roy Martin

    Roy Martin Senior Member

    Always suspicious of someone who signs himself Mr!
     
    Vintage Wargaming likes this.
  11. Vintage Wargaming

    Vintage Wargaming Well-Known Member

    To be fair his first name alone would not let you know whether he was a man or a woman
     
    Charley Fortnum and Roy Martin like this.
  12. Roy Martin

    Roy Martin Senior Member

    This is true!!
     
  13. Charley Fortnum

    Charley Fortnum Dreaming of Red Eagles

    Perhaps he should write his full name (and learn the correct use of punctuation).

    I'll bet he's actually a Christopher, although today it seems pretty common to christen children with abbreviated names.
     

Share This Page