Special Branch Register and Ledger-decison Notice

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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 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

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

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

best wishes

Phil

[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

[Hunter]

Someone had to provide them with that 'information'.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Hunter,

Looks to me like a hurried bodge-job of an article. It must be remembered that the Sunday newspapers were full of one story only that day.. the phone hacking story.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

New appeal

I would like to inform the community that after studying the Tribunals decision notice. I am of the opinion that there are two separate grounds for seeking leave to appeal to The Upper Tribunal.

One is on a point of law, the second is with regards to proceedure.

On the first I am asking for the decison to be set aside and my appeal allowed.

On the second I am asking for the decison to be set aside and a new tribunal convened before a new Judge and new members.

I have submitted the notice of appeal and must now await another Judge considering the appeal grounds. He will then either rule on one or both as to whether there are sufficient grounds for the matter to be sent to The Upper Tribunal.

As an when that decison is known I will update everyone.

[lynn cates]

good luck

Hello Trevor. Best of luck.

Cheers.
LC