Leveson Inquiry – Data Protection Act request for information

RE: Urgent – For Kim BrudenellFriday, 24 February, 2012 12:57

From: “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team”Add sender to ContactsTo: “‘robert henderson'”, “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team”Dear Mr Henderson

Thank you for your email the contents of which are noted.

I appreciate that you have long standing concerns regarding Mr Morgan. The Inquiry’s position was made clear in our emails of 15 and 16 February and I have nothing to add to that.  If, however, the position changes and the Inquiry does require a statement from you, we will let you know.

Yours sincerely

Kim Brudenell

Solicitor to the Leveson Inquiry

———————————————

Miss Kim Brudenell

Solicitor to the Inquiry

Leveson Inquiry

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC1

29 February  2012

Dear Miss Brudenell,

As I pointed out in my last email a failure to answer reasonable questions is evidence against the refuser.   Your blanket refusal  speaks volumes.

I am going to send more  information which is every bit as strong as that which I have supplied. If you refuse to use that evidence and call me as a witness the dishonesty of the Inquiry process will become ever more obvious and extreme.

For the moment I shall content myself with sending some immediately pertinent information . This involves the  failure of the Metropolitan Police to investigate Rebecca  Brooks (then Wade)  after she had admitted to a select committee that the police had been paid for information  while she was a News International  editor.  (I was at the hearing when she made the admission)

My letters of complaint to the police in 2003  urging them to investigate  Brooks/Wade’s admission and  commentary on the  failure of the police to investigate are below.  (see  http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-refusal-of-the-police-to-investigate-rebekah-wade/).  The police refused to even answer the letters – they indubitably received them because they were sent by recorded delivery – so desperate were they not to get involved..

I also include letters to the MP Chris Bryant who asked the question of  Brooks/Wade which elicited her admission of payments to the police (ibid). Bryant did nothing to get a prosecution started. You will also see that my letters to the Metropolitan Police were copied to each member of the DCMS. Neither individually nor as a committee did they act to see an investigation of Brooks/Wade was begun.  All of this speaks to the unhealthy relationship between MPs and the Murdoch press and probably  the relationship between  politicians and the media generally.

Two other things.  I wish to make applications for information under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

I make a formal subject access request under the DPA for all information you hold on me.  Under the 1998 Act that means not only the information held in digital form but any other data held in a searchable filing system. That can be as simple as a folder holding documents marked with a name, number or other signifier.  The information you supply to me should include copies of any data I have sent to  the Inquiry. You have 40 calendar days from today to supply the information or give reasons for refusing to do so.

As for the FOIA,  please inform me whether the Inquiry comes within  remit of the Act. If you claim it does not please give your reasons.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

————————————————————————————

RE: Urgent – For Kim Brudenell – new evidenceWednesday, 29 February, 2012 17:08

From: “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team” Add sender to ContactsTo: “‘robert henderson'” , “Leveson Inquiry Solicitors Team” Solicitors.Team@levesoninquiry.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Mr Henderson

I acknowledge receipt of your email, the contents of which are noted.

Your applications for information under the Data Protection Act (DPA) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) have been passed to the Secretariat and you will hear from them shortly.  You may wish to consider the FAQ’s on the website, which may assist you.

Kind regards

Sharron Hiles

————————————————————————————

Ms Sharron Hiles

Asst solicitor to the Inquiry

Leveson Inquiry

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC1

4 March   2012

Dear Ms Hiles,

Thank you for your email of 29 Feb.   I see from the  FAQ that the Inquiry  does not come within the remit of the FOIA.  However the Inquiry does promise that  it “will endeavour to conduct proceedings in an open and transparent manner.  As part of this, as much information as possible will be provided on this website.” Taking this commitment to transparency  at face value I ask the Inquiry for the following information:

1.  The number of people who have submitted evidence to the Inquiry.

2. The number of people who have been or will be called to give oral evidence.

3. The number of people who have supplied  the Inquiry with a letter from a Fleet Street editor in which the editor admits to receiving information from the police in circumstances which can only be illegal.

4.  The number of people who supplied the Inquiry with  evidence of the police failing to investigate complaints of police officers supplying information illegally  to the press.

5. The number of people who have supplied the Inquiry with evidence of the PCC failing to adjudicate  on complaints.

I ask for the most up-to-date answers to these questions.

The Inquiry Secretariat has yet to contact me.   I would be grateful if you can remind them to contact me ASAP.  An answer to my subject access request under the Data Protection Act is of course a legal requirement.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

————————————————————————————

156 Levita House, Chalton Street, London NW1 1HR Tel: 0207 387 5018Email: anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk

Ms Sharron Hiles

Asst solicitor to the Inquiry

Leveson Inquiry

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC1

10 March 2012

Dear Ms Hiles,

I have not had a reply from you to my email of 4 March (copy below) , nor, despite your promise that they would do so,  has the secretariat contacted me.

Please let me  know  ASAP where I stand with regard to both my subject access request and my additional request for information in lieu of  an FOIA request.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

————————————————————————————

Leveson InquiryFriday, 16 March, 2012 15:19

From: “Jeffery, Amanda (DJO-JO)”Add sender to ContactsTo: “‘anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk'”Dear Mr Henderson,

I am sorry for the delay in acknowledging receipt of your request for information under the Data Protection Act 1988.  Under the terms of the Act, we are required to provide you with a response within 40 days.  I will, therefore, write to you with a full response to your request by Monday 9th April 2012.

I have also been passed the other questions you have asked in relation to the Inquiry, in your email of 4th March.  We will provide you with an answer to these questions at the same time, namely by 9th April 2012.

Yours sincerely,

Amanda Jeffery

Amanda Jeffery | Leveson Inquiry:  culture, practices and ethics of the press | Royal Courts of Justice | Strand | London | WC2A 2LL | Telephone 020 7947 7837 or 07759 609835 | http://www.levesoninquiry.org

————————————————————————————

The Leveson Inquiry

culture, practices and

ethics of the press

 

R Henderson Esq

3 April 2012

 

Dear Mr Henderson,

 

Subject Access Request

Thank you for your email of 29 February 2O12, in which you made a Subject Access Request (SAR) asking for all information on you held by the Leveson inquiry. Your request has been handled under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA).

 

We have now completed a search of our records and can confirm that the inquiry Team does hold personal data within the scope of your request. That personal data is being processed for the purposes of the requests and enquiries you had made of the Leveson inquiry.

 

The attached schedule shows the personal data that you are entitled to under section 7 of the DPA; as you are a recipient or the originator of each of these emails or communications, I do not propose to send you a further copy. However, if you would like to see any particular documents then I will arrange for copies to be sent to you.

 

You can find out more about the right of access to personal data under section 7, by reading the extract from the Act attached at the end of this letter.

 

You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act, (available at http://www.lesislation.gov.uk/ukpsa/1998/29lsection/7) and further guidance http://www.ico.gov.uk/for organisations/data protection/subject access requests.

 

You have the right to appeal our decision if you think it is incorrect. Details of how to appeal are annexed to this letter.

 

Request for Further information

 

You have also requested certain other information from the Inquiry. As you are aware, the Inquiry is not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, but Lord Justice Leveson has indicated that the Inquiry will be conducted in an open and transparent manner. With that in mind I can answer your questions as follows:

1. The number of people who have submitted evidence to the Inquiry: we do not have an absolute number of submissions that we have received, as the inquiry is still inviting and accepting submissions to the Inquiry and so the number is constantly changing. I can tell you, however, that the Inquiry has heard oral evidence from 258 witnesses, and has published their witness statements on the inquiry website. The evidence of a number of other people has also been read into the inquiry and, again, their submissions have all been published on our website. Finally, we publish monthly updates of the number of emails, submissions and other enquiries that have come in; you will find this information in the “About the Inquiry” section of the website.

2. The number of people who have been or will be called to give oral evidence: by close of play on Wednesday 4th April, the Inquiry will have taken oral evidence from 258 witnesses. It is not possible for us, at this point, to know how many witnesses will be asked to give evidence during the remainder of the inquiry.

3. The number of people who have supplied the Inquiry with a letter from a Fleet Street editor in which the editor admits to receiving information from the police in circumstances which can only be illegal: the inquiry does not specifically record information in this way. It is, of course, open to you to review the statements that have been published on our website.

4. The number of people who supplied the inquiry with evidence of the police failing to investigate complaints of police officers supplying information illegally to the press: the inquiry does not specifically record information in this way.

5.The number of people who have supplied the inquiry with evidence of the PCC failing to adjudicate on complaints: again, the inquiry does not specifically record information in this way.

Amanda Jeffrey

(PP by N Mossally)

———————————————————-

Ms Amanda Jeffrey

Leveson Inquiry

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC1

11 April 2012

Dear Ms Jeffrey,

Thank you for your letter of 3 April in response to my subject access request under the data Protection Act (DPA).

I shall be making a complaint to the Information Commissioner because it beggars belief that all you hold  is my correspondence with the Inquiry plus one email  sent by Roger Dewhurst relating to my case which was forwarded to the Inquiry by Josephine Norris.  However, before I write to the Commissioner   it would be helpful if you answered this question:  do you hold information about me which you have withheld because you do not believe it falls within the ambit of the DPA? If you are withholding information, which DPA exemption or exemptions are you relying on to deny me copies?

As for copies of   the correspondence between the Inquiry and me, I do require photostatted copies of all of these.

I would also be grateful  if you could send me a copy of  your letter of 3 April (including enclosures) in digital form as I do not have a scanner with OCR.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Robert Henderson

————————————————————————————

Ms Amanda Jeffrey

Leveson Inquiry

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC1

18 April 2012

 

Dear Ms Jeffrey,

I would appreciate a rapid  reply to my email of 11 April – copy below.

You are obligated to send me the copies of my emails and letters which you hold. As for the question of any  other data you are withholding,  I know from my previous dealings with the Information Commissioner that although a data holder may rely on the exemptions under the DPA,  if they do they need to identify which exemptions there are relying on. So, I will ask again: are you withholding data relating to me because you believe the data is exempted?

If I have not got a full response  from you within the next 7 days I shall refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Yours sincerely,

 

Robert Henderson

————————————————————————————

FW: Leveson Inquiry – FTAO Amanda Jeffrey – urgent

Monday, 23 April, 2012 15:09

From: “Leveson Inquiry General Enquiries”View contact detailsTo: “anywhere156@yahoo.co.uk”Dear Mr Henderson

Thank you for your email of the 18 April 2012 addressed to Amanda Jeffery.

The Inquiry will forward to you the hard copy of correspondence by the end of the week.  The information and emails that will not be disclosed to you have been withheld under the legal professional privilege exemption.

Kind regards,

The Leveson Inquiry Team

www.levesoninquiry.org.uk

————————————————————————————

FW: Leveson Inquiry – FTAO Amanda Jeffrey – urgentMonday, 30 April, 2012 16:18

From: “robert henderson”View contact detailsTo: “Leveson Inquiry General Enquiries”

Leveson Inquiry

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC1

30 April 2012

Dear Sirs,

The promised documents have not arrived. Please send them ASAP.

Regarding the infomation you are withholding,  saying data is being “withheld under the legal professional privilege exemption is rather vague. ” Which of the following  exemptions are you relying on?

DPA Part IV Exemptions

27. Preliminary.

28. National security.

29. Crime and taxation.

30. Health, education and social work.

31. Regulatory activity.

32. Journalism, literature and art.

33. Research, history and statistics.

33A. Manual data held by public authorities.

34. Information available to the public by or under enactment.

35. Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.

35A. Parliamentary privilege.

36. Domestic purposes.

37. Miscellaneous exemptions.

38. Powers to make further exemptions by order.

39. Transitional relief.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

————————————————————————————

Ms Kim Brudenell,

Solicitor to the Inquiry

Leveson Inquiry

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London WC1

13 May  2012

 

Dear  Miss Brudenell,

I am still waiting for a reply to the email sent on 30 April which is below.  I would be grateful if you could let me know by return which exemption the Inquiry is attempting to bring into play.  As I have not been granted Copre Participant Status and have not been  called as a witness ,  and consequently  have no formal legal association with the Inquiry,  I fail to see how legal professional privilege  would apply.

You may find this blog post of interest:

http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/leveson-inquiry-lord-leveson-prepares-the-way-for-the-cancellation-of-part-2/

Yours sincerely,

 

Robert Henderson

 

 

 

About these ads
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 204 other followers

%d bloggers like this: