Special Branch Register and Ledger-decison Notice

[Hunter]

Someone had to provide them with that 'information'.

[Chris]

In a short but spectacularly inaccurate article, the Sunday Mirror reported that the tribunal had ruled that a secret 900-page dossier on the Whitechapel Murders naming four new suspects would not be released, after "Scotland Yard said living relatives of the suspects could be attacked"

http://tinyurl.com/6z4zfvd

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Thank you. Allow me to change that to qualified FOI tribunal members, all.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

The crucial thing for me at least, is that one person on that tribunal panel, a qualified judge, saw through this reasoning of the Met Police. Two other judges, did not.

The two members of the Tribunal who aren't judges, interestingly enough, are the "Manager, Support Division of the Community Services Directorate of a North East London Borough" and a "Former Development Director of London Underground."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/Tribunal.pdf

[Chris]

I have had an attempt at trying to see that last name. Having cropped the pic, blown it up, re-shaded and added a bit of colouring.. this is what I came up with.
The way the first letter is written, it seems to me it could be like a rounded "W". Am not certain however.

I cannot make out a name either. Possibly one starting with "B".

"W,B / post / ?? (port?) Am very uncertain however.

Maybe someone else can see something legible here?

Actually, your edited image reinforces my impression that "C.I.D. Registry" is correct, particularly as we know that this fits the context perfectly.

[Chris]

I don't believe that the tribunal would have the authority to order the BL to do anything.

I wasn't talking about the Tribunal. I was talking about the people who put the argument that the document shouldn't be released - the Met Police. (And given the other things that are happening at the moment I think they should be concentrating all their efforts on putting their own house in order.)

Seriously, if they really believed what they were saying, they should have taken steps to stop this material being freely available.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris, all,

I have had an attempt at trying to see that last name. Having cropped the pic, blown it up, re-shaded and added a bit of colouring.. this is what I came up with.
The way the first letter is written, it seems to me it could be like a rounded "W". Am not certain however.

I cannot make out a name either. Possibly one starting with "B".

"W,B / post / ?? (port?) Am very uncertain however.

Maybe someone else can see something legible here?

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello GM,

I believe I am correct in saying the following..
This decision notice was from the Lower Tier Tribunal.
I believe an appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal is available. Applications for the appeal must be submitted within 28 days from the issue of the decision notice, I believe. (that would be 28 days from July 4th 2011)

Grounds for appeal, on the other hand, and what are accepted as grounds for any appeal to be made, are another matter entirely.
As well as costs.

I am sure Trevor will correct me if I am mistaken when he next sees the thread (as it is 03.05a.m. in the UK now.. he may very well be asleep).

best wishes

Phil

[The Grave Maurice]

I don't believe that the tribunal would have the authority to order the BL to do anything. It can only decide upon the matter that was placed before it. And, as I understand it, no further appeal from its decision is available. Too bad.

As Phil says, thanks for posting the decision, Chris, and we all owe Trevor a vote of thanks for his efforts.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris, GM,

I said this before, on the original thread pertaining to the ledgers, that every excuse under the sun was originally used by the Met Police to stop this, and eventually only the FOI Act 30(2) was left.

One can easily understand why people wonder about transparency, as pouted by high ranking policemen. I think the words I am looking for are failure to be "seen to be done". Yet, John Yates, Ass. Comm... today, during the grilling he received from the Home Affairs Select Committee in Parliament said that the need for public confidence in the Metropolitan Police was paramount, and that he would do all he could on this point.
John Yates is Head of Anti-terrorism at Scotland Yard..the VERY group the 5 officers in court in this appeal come under. They are (were) part of the 4,500 staff under his wing. Public confidence.. seen to be done...transparency. Hmmm...

The crucial thing for me at least, is that one person on that tribunal panel, a qualified judge, saw through this reasoning of the Met Police. Two other judges, did not. Now that means there is, in my mind, considerable doubt as to the certainty of the case made by the Met Police.. on a legal level and a common sense one.

The difference between "very small" and "very small but very important" is an individual assessment judgement only. Lawfully, if the balance between the two opposing criteria had been equal, then the law states that the ledgers and registers would have to be released into the public domain.
That's how close this decision actually was.

Trevor Marriott has worked tirelessly to try, for the sake of the victim's families alive today, the historical interest from many quarters, the public interest in general on the Whitechapel murders and other interested parties, to get these documents freely available. He deserves one heck of a slap on the back for his efforts, and should be very proud of his contribution on behalf of all the above parties.

best wishes

Phil

Edit: Thank you for putting the link to the decision notice up, Chris.

[Chris]

Hmm. If one believes the arguments put forward, Clutterbuck's thesis - which is freely available through the Internet - is not only endangering the descendants of Victorian informers, but imperilling our national security by discouraging present-day informers.

Why on earth haven't they done something about this threat to national security? Why haven't they at least tried to stop the British Library offering a free download of the thesis:

http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?did=9&uin=uk.bl.ethos.247489

Could it perhaps be because they realise their arguments are completely bogus?

[The Grave Maurice]

My wife (an English major in her youth) tells me that my last post was gibberish. What I should have said is that if one member of the majority had sided with the minority opinion, the proper decision would have been reached. She is, as usual, correct.

[The Grave Maurice]

Drat! I'm disappointed. But no one can say that it isn't a thoughtful and well-written decision. And only one of them came down on the wrong side (IMO). Close, but no cigar.

[Chris]

Failure of common sense

For those with strong stomachs, the "Decision Notice" of the Tribunal is here:

http://tinyurl.com/68sec23

"On balance the majority view is that the small public interest in disclosure is not outweighed by the also fairly small, but very important, public interest in maintaining the exemption.

The minority view is that, despite the seniority of the witnesses and the strength of their convictions, their reasoning - that a current day informant, having sufficient emotional resilience to serve any useful purpose, would withdraw co-operation upon seeing that the freedom of information regime requires 120 year old records to be disclosed - simply fails a very basic common sense test ..."

All I can say is congratulations to the member of the tribunal who remembered that there was such a thing as common sense, and thanks to Trevor Marriott, Simon Wood and Phil Carter for doing their best in the cause of common sense.

[mariab]

As I see this, it reads.
“Churchill, Mr. alleged perpetrator of Whitechapel murders“
Cannot quite work out the name at the end, but looks like it starts with C.I.
(Chief Inspector?) and a name starting with the letter B ?
Perhaps others see this more clearly.

I too see “CID“, like Chris.
I didn't see an “R.“ initial before “Churchill“, though! So there goes “Randoplh“...

If you look at the Churchill entry the file reference number is shown as 52983. I have attached the first parts of two of Insp Abberlines reports notice they both have the same file numbers 52983.
It would seem that this file and number could have been the main working file the police had in relation to the Whitechapel Murders

Also Sergeant Stephen White's report pertaining to the Berner Street case features file number 52983, while Robert Anderson's letter from the HO features file number 53983. (See The Ultimate, p. 144-45 and p. 142.)