The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[mariab]

I think the idea that records should remain secret not only when they are more than a century old, but in perpetuity, is ludicrous.

Totally.

An anonymous officer is reported to have told the tribunal that even the relations of Judas Iscariot would be at risk if they could be traced. I don't know quite what he thought he was achieving, but surely he has provided the ideal reductio ad absurdum of the Special Branch case - as well as demonstrating a spectacular ignorance of genealogical arithmetic.

I saw this in the Montréal Gazette. A comedy number.

[Phil H]

First - curious, whatever the situation in the USA, I don't think it applies in Ireland, we still have psycopathic, revenant IRA people killing policemen.

I can only speak as one who operates the system, in a different department of state, and say that we (I and my team) bend over backwards to be as open as possible. Some colleagues remain uncomfortable with releasing commercial, and other information, but we almost always challenge that (the exception is when it would be clearly damaging to the public interest).

Even when material is considered sufficiently sensitive to be withheld there is a stringent, detailed and complex internal "public interest test" which has to be applied. All this is open retrospectively to the Commisioner for Information so there is an open audit. There are levels of appeal as well.

It is easy to say that the reasons for not releasing are insufficiently good, but I would deny that, although sometimes material can be so potentially damaging that one cannot even agree that it exists - "we can neither confirm nor deny that such information exists".

I suspect that with the registers the initial conclusion was with many of you, these are old, historic documents and there should be no bar to their release. Then, perhaps belatedly, someone recognised the potential dangers involved in release. That is always possible - non-specialists such as i cannot always know the fine detail of a subject or its ramifications and i have come across such cases though not in an FOI context.

I realise how frustrating some of these official procedures can be, but there have (surely?) to be checks and balances, and I know from long experience that the people involved will be working hard in the public interest. That may not be the individual interest of course.

By the way, if the material is released, Trevor will have no proprietery right to it - anyone will be able to ask for the same material to be supplied to them.

Phil

[Roy Corduroy]

Oh, Okay, thank you for that Chris. Then you are right and I've got it all wrong. I thought there was a law that Special Branch files are held closed forever. I could have sworn that has been mentioned right here on these message boards. Maybe even in Ripper books and articles by writers in the know.

Reading the link you provided it says those files are released to the public under the "70 year rule." Since that exists, then its simple. The files Trevor wants should be released under the "70 year rule." My apologies, Trevor. Just tell your lawyer to invoke the "70 year rule."

I should have known not to stick my neck out where its something I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Roy

[Phil H]

I think that, since 2001, the UK FOI Act has essentially trumped any other "rules" about release of public documents.

There used to be a general 70 year rule that applied to all Government papers, that has now come down successively to 30, and instant if there is no over-riding exemption.

The exemptions under FOI come in 2 categories, absolute - which includes such things as national security, special forces etc, and others which have to be "tested" before they can be applied. The expectation is essentially in favour of release.

The exemptions that have to be tested include such things as legal cases, commercial confidentiality, Government decisions being made. Personal information comes under the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

A difference between the two Acts is that FOI looks to authorised release of information and openness, the DPA on the contrary seeks to protect and limit access essentially to the person concerned.

Special Branch might be able to try to use the absolute exemption, but I suspect that it would be a risky strategy, hhence they may now be looking at individual criteria for exemptions, including the risk to people's safety.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

A snitch in time

Hello all,

Here's another link..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8514132/A-snitch-in-time.html

best wishes

Phil

[jason_c]

Hello all,

Here's another link..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8514132/A-snitch-in-time.html

best wishes

Phil

Interesting thread.

Phil

Would there be any legal issues involved?

What I mean is would the Special Branch have promised anonymity to a "supergrass" in any legal document at the time?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jason,

As far as I am aware, no informant signed any piece of paper at all at that time (edit: Unlike today when they are obliged to do so)
The answer is therefore no.

best wishes

Phil

[Chris]

Technically the other files I mentioned are Colonial Office records, so different rules apply, but I think the fact that they are freely available does make it very difficult to sustain the argument that releasing these ledgers would be a threat to national security.

[curious]

First - curious, whatever the situation in the USA, I don't think it applies in Ireland, we still have psycopathic, revenant IRA people killing policemen.

I can only speak as one who operates the system, in a different department of state, and say that we (I and my team) bend over backwards to be as open as possible. Some colleagues remain uncomfortable with releasing commercial, and other information, but we almost always challenge that (the exception is when it would be clearly damaging to the public interest).

Even when material is considered sufficiently sensitive to be withheld there is a stringent, detailed and complex internal "public interest test" which has to be applied. All this is open retrospectively to the Commisioner for Information so there is an open audit. There are levels of appeal as well.

It is easy to say that the reasons for not releasing are insufficiently good, but I would deny that, although sometimes material can be so potentially damaging that one cannot even agree that it exists - "we can neither confirm nor deny that such information exists".

I suspect that with the registers the initial conclusion was with many of you, these are old, historic documents and there should be no bar to their release. Then, perhaps belatedly, someone recognised the potential dangers involved in release. That is always possible - non-specialists such as i cannot always know the fine detail of a subject or its ramifications and i have come across such cases though not in an FOI context.

I realise how frustrating some of these official procedures can be, but there have (surely?) to be checks and balances, and I know from long experience that the people involved will be working hard in the public interest. That may not be the individual interest of course.

By the way, if the material is released, Trevor will have no proprietery right to it - anyone will be able to ask for the same material to be supplied to them.

Phil

Trevor should not have proprietary rights. Whatever is contained in those volumes should have been open to the public years ago if the 70-year-rule is indeed law.

There are other considerations, not just to the descendants of the women killed but to the innocent men whose names have been sullied as "suspects" over the years as people attempt to figure out the name of Jack the Ripper.

If there is information that sheds light on that, it should be made available.

If the 70-year-rule is law, it is my opinion that the agency is out of line to deny the people the right of knowing whatever there is to know.

curious

[Phil H]

Curious

However fervent your wish for these records to be released, the law and process simply does not work like that.

Trevor should not have proprietary rights. Whatever is contained in those volumes should have been open to the public years ago if the 70-year-rule is indeed law.

I can't speak authoritatvively, but the 70 year rule was superceded by a 30 year rule (for instance for Cabinet papers) in - I think - the 70s. But that did not affect other records where different procedures applied - for instance lunatic and criminal records (the Ripper files were opened early, first to writers like Stephen Knight, and then more widely, in the early 70s). But I think Fido was hindered by the 100 year rule on asylum records in the 80s.

There are other considerations, not just to the descendants of the women killed but to the innocent men whose names have been sullied as "suspects" over the years as people attempt to figure out the name of Jack the Ripper.

Such considerations would carry no weight, if we are looking at names (personal data) the rules on which over-ride FOI; or if there were a security concern.

In other words, you have no right to know information about me held by Government - although I do) and wider information ought to be released always providing there are no serious concerns to warrant exemption. Similar considerations apply - I believe - with regard to graveyards and cemeteries, which cabnnot be redeveloped/bodies exhumed until something like 70 years after the last internment. This is because descendents of the last deceased - children and grandchildren might still be alive and distressed by such action. The same considerations might apply to the SF registers.

If there is information that sheds light on that, it should be made available.

A no doubt laudable aspiration, but (please don't be offended by my directness) such simplistic approaches won't work. There are valid considerations to be taken into account over and above that which no sensible Government would ignore - life and limb, security and precedent being but three.

If the 70-year-rule is law, it is my opinion that the agency is out of line to deny the people the right of knowing whatever there is to know.

Believe me, Government these days is very open, with the exception of personal data and other sensitive matters. Do relatives and descendents have no rights in your eyes then, simply because you want to know/see something? Conspiracy theories are surely really very out of place and slightly immature in this regard.

Phil

[curious]

How interesting that of the several newspaper articles I've read, the writers don't appear to buy the government's arguments either.

Be as insulting as you wish, Phil, people have very good reasons not to trust the government, and your condescending attitude is a very good example why.

[jason_c]

How interesting that of the several newspaper articles I've read, the writers don't appear to buy the government's arguments either.

Be as insulting as you wish, Phil, people have very good reasons not to trust the government, and your condescending attitude is a very good example why.

Newspapers disagreeing with secrecy is hardly surprising.

[Stewart P Evans]

Police mindset

There is a need to understand the police mindset with regard to the Special Branch material.

In my opinion this is all about, and only about, informant confidentiality. Family traditions and loyalties run long and deep in these circles. The Special Branch files have always been understood to be closed 'in perpetuity'. That means for good! It's pointless working to this ethos if you are not going to adhere to it. The success of any such organisation is built upon the quality of information received and the trust that their informants have in them.

When an informant passes information he realises that his very life or wellbeing, and that of his family, may be endangered. If he knows that what he has done is never, ever, going to be divulged he will feel all the more confident in passing information.

Revenge sometimes has a long arm and if the mischief caused is serious enough then revenge may be exacted many years later on descendants of the informant as an example to any would-be informants, 'See, we have a long memory, do not cross us, we will exact revenge, even after many years.'

There is no easy answer and if information is selectively released it will be seen as the thin end of the wedge and confidence will be diminished or destroyed.

[Phil H]

people have very good reasons not to trust the government, and your condescending attitude is a very good example why.

Curious - I did not intend to be condescending in my previous post on this thread - I am, given your tone, in a later one on the "Grassed-Up" thread.

Your personal views are of no concern to me - I simply sought to set out the position as perceived from the "government side". I used the word "immature" because to talk of conspiracy and cover-up really indicates a very unsophisticated understanding of how governments work. That was all.

Incidentally, as you appear to live in Tennessee, can I ask how you get your deep insight into UK public opinion and attitudes to government?

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

An interesting blogg on the subject is here:-

http://www.alexbutterworth.co.uk/2011/05/15/the-special-branch-ledgers-the-information-commission-and-jack-the-ripper

My thanks to Chris Scott for the heads up on this on the jtrforums site.

best wishes

Phil