The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Trevor Marriott]

On March 3oth March 2009 the tribunal made the new decision to redact all proper names. This was as a result of an appeal brought by another author Alex Butterworth who is also a retired special branch officer.

He wanted free and unimited access to the ledgers but The met police refused. As i said previous the appeal was a carve up due to Butterworth not being told the date and time of the hearing and the misleading information given by special branch in his absence.

The only way this judgment could be overturned was by the high court and that would mean Butterworth would have to take up the case yet again.

Because he was working on a deadline for his book he chose not to go down that route.

I knew there was no way I could go down the same route so i had to adopt a different tactic. That being "public interest" I had to try to show that the information I sought was in the public interest. I feel I at this time have a case based on those facts.

However time will tell.

[Chris]

With regards to the redaction. The met police have carried out the redaction in accordance with the tribunal ruling. i have already challenged this point.

What puzzles me is that the 2008 decision clearly allows only information covered by section 21 to be "redacted" (i.e. "Information which is reasonably available to the applicant otherwise" - that is, what has already been published in Clutterbuck's thesis). The decision explicitly disallows the other grounds put forward for witholding information (paragraphs 121-123). Moreover, the Commissioner suggests that "it would be practical for the public authority to make the entirety of the information available" - i.e. without any "redaction" whatsoever.

It's also worth bearing in mind that the Commissioner found that in its handling of the initial request the authority had already acted in breach of the law in a number of respects (paragraphs 113-116). That makes it particularly surprising if it was subsequently allowed to disregard the Commissioner's ruling by refusing to make the specified information available.

[robhouse]

Clutterbuck's thesis is available as a free download from the British Library's Ethos website.

The quote Simon previously quoted was in reference to Evans and Gainey's book on Tumblety. He also wrote:

"The proposition that there was a possible Irish suspect for these murders is not as incongruous as it seems. At least one book, "The Lodger" (Evans and Gainey, 1995) is based on a Home Office memorandum relating to this idea and there are more relevant entries in the Chief Constable's Register. It does not corroborate their theory but does enable an outline to be constructed of a intriguing story involving an extreme Irish nationalist who is suspected of being "Jack the Ripper", an alleged plot to assassinateth e Secretary for Ireland, Balfour, and the activities of a private detective agency. However, it is a digression from the thrust of this research and regretfully it cannot be pursued appropriately here."

The only actual reference to a suspect Clutterbuck cited (as far as I could tell) was the following:

"Uniformed Divisional police officers were also a regular source of overt information and sent reports to MPSB on matters appertaining to their specialised work. Sometimes, its links to political crime appeared to be tenuous
"McGrath, William – suspicious Irishman at 57 Bedford Gardens" followed by
"McGrath, William - said to be connected to Whitechapel murders".

In other words, as a consequence of being a "suspicious Irishman" he was also being put forward as a suspect for the "Jack the Ripper" series of murders."

Apparently there are other references to the murders, but I have no idea what they are, obviously.

RH

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Bang goes the financial argument then!. I think you have a fairly strong case Trevor. Well played that man.

best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

good luck

Hello Trevor. Good luck, then.

The best.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Phil Carter;136729]Hello Chris, Archaic, Simon, Trevor, Lynn, all,


"Due to the age and size of the ledgers as well as the condition, it would require a great deal of care when handling, this would make the job of copying almost impossible due to the impact of time and resources – bringing us into the fees consideration. To read, redact and copy an estimated 550 pages working on the figure of inspection time alone without preparation … would take us to an estimated cost of £2,364.”

The ledgers have been photocopied and new ledgers made up from these copies.

It is ironic that these ledgers in unredcated form when found were offered to the national archives who declined them stating they were of no worthwhile interest.

[Trevor Marriott]

redaction

With regards to the redaction. The met police have carried out the redaction in accordance with the tribunal ruling. i have already challenged this point.

The main argument I have put forward is the fact that the tribunal gave their judgment based mainly on what special branch officers told them.

They went to great lenghts to suggest the bulk of the information contained in these ledgers related to informants. Even examining the ledgers in redacted form clearly that is not correct. As an ex police officer i was quickly able to asses and evaluate the contents despite the heavy redaction. That is why I am able to make that statement.

As far as their argument and the reference to Clutterbcuks thesis which was then freely available is concerned the contents on this were played down. I have read the thesis and i am able to say that there are 80 pages in the thesis which contain extracts from the ledgers. Informants are named with details of what information they gave and how much they were paid as well as other references regarding the workings of special branch.

In view of this their argument about wanting to protect the name of informants is vrey weak.

As far as the Ripper is concerned as Clutterbuck states there are only minor references to the ripper documented. One has to remember his reserach was into the workings of Special Branch. He would not have been fully au fait with the Ripper mystery and the many names of persons connected to the mystery, and therefore i hope there will be other references to The Ripper found when I hopefully get to view them in unredcated form.

[Phil Carter]

Health and Safety

Hello Chris, Archaic, Simon, Trevor, Lynn, all,

When I first read that ruling, I was amazed at the lengths gone to to try and protect those documents seeing the light of day.

From paragraphs 113 onwards, under "The Decision" it was said...

"The Commissioner’s decision is that the public authority did not deal with the request for information in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Act, specifically in that it failed to issue a timely refusal notice thereby breaching section 17(1). Additionally, this refusal notice did not refer to the sub-section of each the exemptions claimed thereby breaching section 17(1)(b)."

Additionally,

"The Commissioner also finds that by failing to inform the complainant of its change in reliance on an exemption the public authority breached section 17(1)(a), (b) and (c) and, in failing to cite section 12, it breached section 17(5)."

Additionally

"As the public authority did not make the requested information available to the complainant within twenty working days it breached sections 1(1)(b) and 10(1) of the Act."

Additionally,

"The Commissioner further finds that by not responding to the complainant’s further information requests, identified at paragraph 14 above, the public authority breached sections 1(1)(a) and (b) of the Act and section 10(1)."

Additionally,

"The Commissioner finds that section 12 was misapplied."

Additionally

"...the Commissioner has concluded that the public interest arguments in favour of maintaining the exemption at section 30(2) do not outweigh those in favour of disclosure."

Additionally,

"Section 24 does not apply as exemption from the duty to provide information in section 1(1)(b) is not required for the purpose of safeguarding national security."

Additionally,

"Section 38(1)(a) and (b) are not engaged as the public authority has not demonstrated a real and significant likelihood of endangerment to the health or safety of an individual if the information were released."

And to top the lot, much earlier, the public authority also claimed the complainant to pay £2364.00 claimed by the public authority to cover, and I quote the reasons given in paragraph 45,....

"Due to the age and size of the ledgers as well as the condition, it would require a great deal of care when handling, this would make the job of copying almost impossible due to the impact of time and resources – bringing us into the fees consideration. To read, redact and copy an estimated 550 pages working on the figure of inspection time alone without preparation … would take us to an estimated cost of £2,364.”

The Commissioner found that taking photocopies would in no way come near that figure, and that

"It is unclear to the Commissioner why fees have been introduced."

"The Commissioner considers that the estimated cost of £2,364 is inaccurate and that the appropriate limit is not applicable."

Just about everything possible has been put forward over the years, in one instance or another, pertaining to all sorts of historical documents, not just Ripper related, in order to delay, dissuade and deny. Remember also that we are told of the fact that many historical documents have been either "bombed out" "burnt" "destroyed" "lost" "misplaced" "missing" "purloined" "pulped for the war effort" "stolen" ...yet miraculously, somehow turn up out of nowhere having suffered these terrible injuries in their "history" years later. One excuse after another.

It does make one seriously wonder who tells the truth about what. Truth, you know, the thing the POLICE themselves encourage the public to do!!

People call me suspicious. Take a long hard look at that document and the history surrounding other historical documantation ladies and gentlemen, and tell me that someone (I use the term loosely and over many years), really hasn't been denying everything that can possibly be denied to stop anyone seeing what Special Branch anno ca.1888-1894 were really up to in Whitechapel and elsewhere in East London. There is seemingly no limit to it, going back many decades. For those who think I am still being suspicious...welcome to the real world.

Simon, I repeat, this posting of yours, and Trevor's efforts, are very important. I thank you both, sincerely.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

The Metropolitan Police Service probably is in breach of the ruling, but try telling them that.

Thank goodness the late Dr Clutterbuck left us a few juicy leads to follow up.

Regards,

Simon

[Archaic]

Keep Digging

I agree with Chris, that the notice makes for strange reading. I went through it yesterday with a friend and was particularly struck by the claims of urgent "Health and Safety" concerns and the bizarre inclusion of "Fees" as another serious concern. The latter made me feel that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for justifications to keep very old material secret, and the former just baffled me.

Section 38 – Health and safety

99. Information is exempt under this section if its disclosure would or would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of any individual, or endanger the safety of any individual.

Who is going to have their mental health or physical safety endangered after 120 years???

This reason strikes me as preposterous. The only sense I can make of it is that is a roundabout way of claiming "official embarrassment"
(i.e. "Mental Health") as a reason to keep century-old information out of the public domain.

I say keep digging!

Best regards,
Archaic

[Chris]

What follows is covered by Section 21 paragraph 53 in a 29-page Freedom of Information Act 2000 [Section 50] Decision Notice dated 20th August 2008.

Thanks for a very interesting post.

If anyone wants a depressing read, the full text of the notice is available here:

http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2008/fs_50106800.pdf

I am very puzzled by Trevor's post saying that the ledgers were subsequently made available in a heavily "redacted" form. It appears to me that the 2008 ruling required them to be made available with information removed only where it was reasonably accessible otherwise (i.e. through Clutterbuck's thesis). If they have removed all proper names, are they not in clear breach of the ruling?

[lynn cates]

good work

Hello Simon, Phil, Stewart and Trevor. Good work lads. If we can eliminate a single big "suspect," we can reallocate our resources (ie, the Ripper brain trust) and make significant progress.

Great pity about those redactions. To my feeble mind, ascertaining who those police informants were might be the single most significant item in the files.

Keep us posted, will you?

Cheers.
LC

[Pinkerton]

At the risk of injecting any kind of "politics" into this discussion, why in God's name would information pertaining to the use of government agents be suppressed on something that happened over 110 years ago! Good god! Even the Russians have largely opened up files of the former Soviet Union that are barely 50 years old!

"I'm sorry, we can't release the files on secret Norman agents that prepared the way for William the Conqueror's crossing of the channel, as it might embarrass the descendants of these agents or stir up hostility towards the French..."

Honestly, one would never know that England was the home country of George Orwell...

Sorry, ignore my ranting. Continue with the discussion.

[Scott Nelson]

Do I detect a hint of cynicism resulting from a distinct lack of interest in anything that is unlikely to involve Kosminski and Polish Jews, or which may be critical of Anderson?

Not to detract from the topic of this thread, but Stewart I've never trusted much of what Anderson has written, nor have I ever believed that Aaron Kosminski was the Ripper.

[claire]

Good luck, Trevor...when did Clutterbuck die? Very recently, it must be--I was under the impression he was working for Rand now