The Secret Special Branch Ledgers

[Trevor Marriott]

Having said that Bummer.

You must be gutted Trevor.

Yes I felt this time I had all the answers and more

[Bridewell]

I recently made a new and revised freedom of information request to The Metropolitan Police.This request was based on new facts and new evidence which was not before the original tribunal.

I have today received the following reply :

"Following the tribunals you have mentioned the ledgers.registers were destroyed in line with the retention policy that the documents were to be retained for a period of two years after the last request to view the ledgers which expired 18 November 2013. As the ledger/registers were deemed to be of no policing purpose and the National Archives did not wish to hold the ledgers they were destroyed on 6th January 2014.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That stinks. The records served no policing purpose and the National Archives did not want them - fine. The holders though, knew that they were of interest to a retired police officer who wished to view them. So why destroy them without giving him the chance to see for himself that there was nothing there of any interest? Keep them for two years after the last request to view, knowing that a further request cannot be made for three? Some might think that deliberately obstructive.

[Archaic]

There is a specific time limit before you can make a new application which I think off the top of my head is 3 years and besides no point in putting an application in until you have the ammunition

Sounds like they deliberately headed you off at the pass.

But there should be at least a chance they digitized or otherwise copied the ledgers. After all, they had to have had a good reason to preserve them for 127 years. Why not 128 years, or 150 years?

Maybe they want to be able to say they're physically destroyed in order to keep the contents confidential?

Though I find the argument regarding "protecting the families of informants" to be rather sketchy after such a long time.

Archaic

[Bridewell]

Though I find the argument regarding "protecting the families of informants" to be rather sketchy after such a long time.

And rather contrary to the claim that the documents "were deemed to be of no policing purpose". Surely the protection of families of informants is a policing purpose? (Quite apart from anything else, how do you know whose families you need to protect if the original documentation containing that information has been destroyed?)

[GUT]

There is a specific time limit before you can make a new application which I think off the top of my head is 3 years and besides no point in putting an application in until you have the ammunition

But someone else could have made a purely dodgy application within the 2 years thus extending the time.

[GUT]

Sounds like they deliberately headed you off at the pass.

But there should be at least a chance they digitized or otherwise copied the ledgers. After all, they had to have had a good reason to preserve them for 127 years. Why not 128 years, or 150 years?

Maybe they want to be able to say they're physically destroyed in order to keep the contents confidential?

Though I find the argument regarding "protecting the families of informants" to be rather sketchy after such a long time.

Archaic

Maybe it was the first time that 2years had passed without someone askng for a look.

Or more likely until Trevor argued with them they had all but forgotten about them and then when reminded they applied the law.

[GUT]

And rather contrary to the claim that the documents "were deemed to be of no policing purpose". Surely the protection of families of informants is a policing purpose? (Quite apart from anything else, how do you know whose families you need to protect if the original documentation containing that information has been destroyed?)

How better to protect the families and descendants of informants than destroy any record of who those informants were.

[Trevor Marriott]

But someone else could have made a purely dodgy application within the 2 years thus extending the time.

Then it would not likely to have got to the tribunal stage. A request has to go first through the police. If they refuse there is an appeal to another police dept. If they refuse, Then there are the Information commissioners. If they refuse then you are on your own against them and the police at a tribunal, that's providing a judge will agree there is sufficient evidence to hear the case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And rather contrary to the claim that the documents "were deemed to be of no policing purpose". Surely the protection of families of informants is a policing purpose? (Quite apart from anything else, how do you know whose families you need to protect if the original documentation containing that information has been destroyed?)

It was a ridiculous situation because Clutterbuck in his thesis states that there were 85 informant entries in both the registers and the ledgers and he actually named and printed 49 of those name in his thesis which has been freely available in the public domain since 2002 to this very day.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Then it would not likely to have got to the tribunal stage. A request has to go first through the police. If they refuse there is an appeal to another police dept. If they refuse, Then there are the Information commissioners. If they refuse then you are on your own against them and the police at a tribunal, that's providing a judge will agree there is sufficient evidence to hear the case.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But from what they told you:

"Following the tribunals you have mentioned the ledgers.registers were destroyed in line with the retention policy that the documents were to be retained for a period of two years after the last request to view the ledgers which expired 18 November 2013. As the ledger/registers were deemed to be of no policing purpose and the National Archives did not wish to hold the ledgers they were destroyed on 6th January 2014.

It's 2 years after the last request so a request made on 17 November 2013 would have seen the date pushed out to 17 Nov 2015 even if that request was denied.

[Trevor Marriott]

But from what they told you:



It's 2 years after the last request so a request made on 17 November 2013 would have seen the date pushed out to 17 Nov 2015 even if that request was denied.

What I quoted above was the procedure that follows after making a request from day one

[Phil Carter]

Hello Colin,

"Stinks"...

Yes it does rather.

Now why I am about to write may seem a little controversial..but it might...and I use the term loosely.. might be a reason.

Those 30,000 odd one line entries are Special Branch orientated. They date (I believe-correct me if I am wrong Trevor) to 1894.

Given that all entries would include 1889..and the Cleveland St scandal..The "involvement" per se of high ranking gentry known to have been involved in said scandal would be named under the one line investigations carried out by said Special Branch. Those one line references being obliterated protects ANY name from being revealed at any time if the ledgers/registers were still in existence and any subsequent attempt, such as Trevor, to have the ledgers in unrelated form would leave the possibility open for names involved in anything to be seen.

Transparency..A word bandied about in the media by the police has been shown to be shortcoming in this situation.

You used the word "stinks". I call it an appalling disregard to understand the complete history of the Met Police. They simply don't want Joe Public to latch on to anything..good or bad. Odd that I consider the word "Criminal" when describing this action.

Disgraceful. I wonder if they have destroyed the redacted copy without real names too?

Phil

[GUT]

What I quoted above was the procedure that follows after making a request from day one

That's what am saying Trevor, the 2 years runs from the date of the LAST REQUEST. So a request made before the date of expiry of the last 2 years period resets the clock.

[Chris]

I'm not being critical, of Trevor or anyone else, but it just shows the importance of knowing the rules and time limits when dealing with Govt instrumentalities.

I think they are making up the rules as they go along in this case. The Information Commissioner does recommend not destroying any information that has been the subject of a request until six months after the last correspondence, to make sure there's been time to exhaust all the appeal procedures. But otherwise public bodies are meant to have proper schedules for disposing of records, which are not meant to be influenced by Freedom of Information requests. I don't believe for a moment that these documents had been scheduled for routine destruction, independent of the FOI requests.

Also, the decision about preservation is meant to be made by a responsible officer of the public body, under the guidance of the National Archives. TNA has published its own preservation criteria, which include:
"records relating to individuals or national and international events of significant contemporary interest or controversy"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/records-collection-policy-2012.pdf

I don't think there's any doubt that the Register met that criterion. So I think the justification for destroying these records is extremely dubious. It would be interesting to know what discussions were held between the police and TNA, and what advice TNA really gave. Perhaps that would be a suitable subject for a Freedom of Information request to TNA.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think they are making up the rules as they go along in this case. The Information Commissioner does recommend not destroying any information that has been the subject of a request until six months after the last correspondence, to make sure there's been time to exhaust all the appeal procedures. But otherwise public bodies are meant to have proper schedules for disposing of records, which are not meant to be influenced by Freedom of Information requests. I don't believe for a moment that these documents had been scheduled for routine destruction, independent of the FOI requests.

Also, the decision about preservation is meant to be made by a responsible officer of the public body, under the guidance of the National Archives. TNA has published its own preservation criteria, which include:
"records relating to individuals or national and international events of significant contemporary interest or controversy"

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/records-collection-policy-2012.pdf

I don't think there's any doubt that the Register met that criterion. So I think the justification for destroying these records is extremely dubious. It would be interesting to know what discussions were held between the police and TNA, and what advice TNA really gave. Perhaps that would be a suitable subject for a Freedom of Information request to TNA.

Chris
That is a very good point you raised I will follow it up.