What are they (still) hiding

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil H,

Ahh, possibly slight wires crossed.. I was referring only to known opinion with what we have at present, not anything to do with anything so far unseen. (incase it was misunderstood as such). I do not know of a double act either.

Like you, I have argued for differing killers of Stride and Kelly. (as have some/many others) for a long while.

best wishes

Phil

[Jeff Leahy]

The records according to photoshop I believe Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jeff,

And there I was thinking that dear old DSS provided yet more snippets of invaluable information. Shame that.. haha :-)
Shame for we non-Kosminsky believers too, come to think of it! ;-)


best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

The records according to photoshop I believe Phil

Now if you keep telling porky pies you wont go to heaven.

I am quite happy for you to take all the glory on this occassion one job less for me to do at a later stage.

[FrancoLoco]

Ah we're obviously digging through the same records

Pirate

I am so glad I swallowed that sip of coffee just before seeing this

Thank you!

[Jeff Leahy]

I am so glad I swallowed that sip of coffee just before seeing this

Thank you!

Actually it was a practical joke played on me by my own production team..luckily i spotted it before broadcast

But it took some time to find and reply to Trevor

And I do wish him every luck

Pirate Jeff

PS Actually we had the chance of photographing the Marginalia in High def and UV...I'm still hoping that I might have time to show these at this years London conference if there were interest?

PS PS Has anyone noticed that Swanson forms his letter 'T' differently in every ocassion?

[Phil Carter]

Freedom of Information?

Hello Phil H, all,

Just came across this, which I tentatively suggest may put things into a little perspective here. It is from January 2009, and a newspaper report that answers a few questions and also leads me to ask a few questions (see below). I noticed it on the BBC website, here:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/01/significant_information_tribun.html

The Information Tribunal's decision, announced today, to uphold the ruling by the Information Commissioner [77Kb pdf] that minutes of cabinet meetings from 2003 should be released is a highly significant development. It could even lead to the first instance of ministers using their right of veto to block an FOI disclosure. [Update: Read the decision here [2Mb pdf] and see Nick Robinson's post; also an article by Jeremy Hayes here.]

The decision refers to meetings that discussed the the attorney-general's legal advice about the Iraq war. But the particular significance from an FOI point of view is in the precedents that this case may create.

Some are asking whether it is a green light for the release of other cabinet minutes. The Tribunal says not necessarily - under the FOI Act, every case has to be assessed on its own merits. But it may pave the way for a potentially more important precedent.

The government has argued that releasing such minutes would impede proper recording of free and frank discussion within cabinet. It is likely to resist the ruling, either by appealing to the High Court or by using the ministerial right to veto a Tribunal decision for the first time.

To use the veto will cause a big fuss - but the government could see this as a strong case for doing so, then making it easier to do so again on future occasions once a precedent has been established. That is why some FOI campaigners have been feeling rather uneasy about this case, fearing that this Tribunal decision in favour of greater openness could, ironically, turn out to be a setback for their cause.

Now firstly, if I understand this correctly, the decisions of the Tribunal to give this particular proposal from the Freedom of Information Commissioner the green light, over such a sensitive issue, only 6 (six) years (2003-2009) after the actual occurrence, sheds a little hope in terms of the obvious time period argument of Late Victorian papers. I am however, in no way comparing the minutes of Cabinet meetings about the Iraq war with the case we have been disussing, namely The Special Branch Ledgers.

However, I was startled to see that it is possible for any Government Cabinet to veto a decision of the Information Tribunal, and thereby the upheld appeal by the Information Commissioner. Even more startling, is the power the government has to appeal a Tribunal decision to the High Court.

This, in my humble view, flies totally in the face of what the original intention of the Freedom of Information Act was set up for, i.e. an independent body making decisions of document release, who have the allowance for a Tribunal hearing process to either prevent or uphold such decisions, in two tiers if need be, all independent of Government.

That any decision, if deemed important enough, can be then vetoed by said Government or even taken outside the framework of the Information Tribunal tiers towards the High Court raises eyebrows.

I wonder what you all feel about this, in respect of the possibiity of any Freedom of Information case being started against any material posessed by any public authority (i.e. Scotland Yard), taken through the correct channels (The Freedom of Information Act), about material pertaining to the Whitechapel Murders.

I see the potential for the words "Home Office" to be lurking in the background.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

Ministers can (in certain very specific cases - see Part II Section 23 and following of the Act) issue a certificate with-holding information, just as they can "direct" a Government department to do something that it has advised against. Both actions are, in my personal and extensive experience, RARE.

I think the justification is (and this is my personal view) that Ministers are accountable to the House of Commons (rarely Lords) where they can be questioned on their action - if the arguments are not convincing then in the final analysis they could be forced to resign. thus democratic accountability is maintained and there are effective sanctions against improper use.

The certificates on information ensure a final back-stop if highly sensitive material were to be at risk. But it is an ultimate weapon. The material has to relate to certain security bodies. It can be appealed against.

I am not an expert on this, but I have looked at the Act.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Ministers can (in certain very specific cases - see Part II Section 23 and following of the Act) issue a certificate with-holding information, just as they can "direct" a Government department to do something that it has advised against. Both actions are, in my personal and extensive experience, RARE.

I think the justification is (and this is my personal view) that Ministers are accountable to the House of Commons (rarely Lords) where they can be questioned on their action - if the arguments are not convincing then in the final analysis they could be forced to resign. thus democratic accountability is maintained and there are effective sanctions against improper use.

The certificates on information ensure a final back-stop if highly sensitive material were to be at risk. But it is an ultimate weapon. The material has to relate to certain security bodies. It can be appealed against.

I am not an expert on this, but I have looked at the Act.

Phil

Hello Phil H,

I thank you warmly for your explanation, above, and your use of extensive experience in such matters. Please allow me to see if I understand this correctly..

If we take the problem of the issue put forward by Scotland Yard vis a vis the informants names being revealed from 123 years ago being a directly negative effect on the counter-terrorism situation of today (the argument put by Scotland Yard in the appeal Trevor Marriott is involved in) and line it up with what you have just stated above, then if, in the opinion of a Government Minister (The Home Secretary for example) has the power to override/veto/appeal any decision of the Information Tribunal tier system of QC's, on behalf of the Government, to the House of Lords and/or High Court in an effort to with-hold information that can be deemed highly sensitive, and that relates to certain security bodies?

I note you use the term "ultimate weapon". From what I can see, the information would have to be of sufficient character and weight to for this ultimate weapon to be used, no? I would, speaking personally here, be amazed therefore if such a usage be implemented in the case we refer to involving the Scotland Yard ledgers. Surely that in itself would cause quite a commotion as to exactly what the ledgers themselves contain? For here we talk not of a risk of current day informants being put off by the revelations of such material from 123 years ago..(because each case is handled on it's individual merits and does not therefore set any precedent)..
we are talking of the release of the information itself being of such sensitivity that a security issue arises.
It is hard to imagine that a set of documents from 123 years ago could be of National Security risk today if released.

Therefore I would be astounded if in this case, the release of the Scotland Yard ledgers and files from the LVP could in any way cause the situation whereby a cabinet minister or government veto'ed the Tribunal decision or sent it for appeal themselves to the High Court or House of Lords.

Am I interpreting the possibilities correctly here?

best wishes

Phil

[Phil H]

You are going further than my direct experience is comfortable, Phil.

I quoted the Act and the relevant section - it ought to be readily available on the web to check.

I am sure that Ministers would require a great deal of evidence to persuade them to issue a certificate. I have no idea what that might be, but would guess that it might relate to security, precedent or risk to people now living - all of which could be persuasive, I would suggest. (I have cited the example of a House of Commons debate some years ago on releasing old census information earlier than 100 years after it was collected. MPs voted it down essentially on grounds of:

1) it might deter present day members of the public from entrusting information to Government (i.e. it weakened the strength of any guarantee of confidentiality future Governments might give on a subject;

2) that a specific guarantee of confidentiality for 100 years had been given in 1911, 1922 etc and thus it would breach that to release the raw data before 2011, 2011 etc.

3) if I recall correctly, that it might set a precedent.

Now all three of those arguments MIGHT persuade Ministers today on the FOI case. There may, for all I know, be other even stronger arguments.

But Ministers will know that unless the reasons are VERY strong, they could be made to look stupid either in the House or at an appeal. So I am sure they will be careful.

I would, speaking personally here, be amazed therefore if such a usage be implemented in the case we refer to involving the Scotland Yard ledgers. Surely that in itself would cause quite a commotion as to exactly what the ledgers themselves contain? For here we talk not of a risk of current day informants being put off by the revelations of such material from 123 years ago..(because each case is handled on it's individual merits and does not therefore set any precedent).. we are talking of the release of the information itself being of such sensitivity that a security issue arises.

Speaking from memory - my copy of the Act is on my desk at work - the reasons for the certificate are phrased as organisations/agencies and departments from which the material originated. If that is the case, and the material can be argued to come from one of them, then in strictly legal terms it may be that rather than the content which is germane.

On a further point, in some circumstances agencies can decline to confirm or deny that information relevant to a request exists - this is when it might be interesting to some parties to know even that material had been collected or existed.

Finally, when you write: "For here we talk not of a risk of current day informants being put off by the revelations of such material from 123 years ago..(because each case is handled on it's individual merits and does not therefore set any precedent).. we are talking of the release of the information itself being of such sensitivity that a security issue arises" remember that if this information is about informants then it could relate to families who have been "helpful" in successive generations; OR where a grandchild or great grandchild(ren) could still be living. Some people have long memories.

But I have to reiterate, I know nothing of this case, or the arguments being put forward. I can address only the perspective that colleagues elsewhere in Government may adopt and pursue.

Again, I suggest direct reference to the UK FOI Act and I gave a citation in an earlier post.

Phil