Status: Refused, saying they do not hold the information
Dear Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner
I refer to a Subject Access Request I made to Lancashire constabulary where they have confirmed that a team of dedicated Lancashire police officers were taken from actively duty and assigned full time to work on Operation Malaya. This was from June 2017 to September 2017, a period of 4 months. I understand that there were at least 5 serving police officers who during this time made repeated trips to the West Midlands and Bedfordshire. I have asked Lancashire police for further clarification via Subject Access.
Lancashire police have confirmed though that this dedicated operation was created specifically for two individuals who they freely named in the disclosure as Darren Hogan and George Vella.
They claim the task force was created specifically to investigate complaints that these two individuals had made about me. Lancashire police claim that the complaints were ‘complex’. I understand the unfounded allegations were of harassment. I have asked for further clarification of the complexity of the allegations and will be asking why I was never questioned relating to these complex allegations resulting in a 4 month dedicated operation.
Even though this highly costly police operation was setup based on allegations made by these two men, I bring to your attention that Darren Hogan was, at the time this operation was created, was on bail and had been charged with Malicious Communications and Harassment against my wife and I. Even so, he was approached by Lancashire police to enrol him into a task force against his victim.
George Vella was also the subject of numerous complaints I had to make to police, one of the complaints was that George Vella openly called me by inference a paedophile on a facebook group, an act of malicious communications, and Lancashire police took ZERO action against him for this but like Hogan, Lancashire police approached Vella and enrolled him in a task force against his victim.
My question to you under the laws of Freedom of Information is,
As you oversee funding for police operations, I want to know the following:
- What this operation cost?
- The rationale for allowing such an expense out of lancashire police funds.
- Rationale why 5 or more serving police officers were taken from normal duty to investigate harassment for 4 solid months.
- Who authorised this outlandish expense.
If you are unaware of the Subject Access REquest disclosure made by Lancashire police that I have outlined above, please let me know and I will disclose it to you via this Freedom of Information request.
I have reviewed your role as a police and Crime Commissioner from this website
Which states: (and I have highlighted in red what I believe to be relative points)
What do PCCs and PFCCs do?
PCCs work with the police and other partners to cut crime, give the public a voice at the highest level, and hold forces to account and help restore trust. Your PCC will do this by:
- being directly accountable to the scrutiny of the public
- having the democratic mandate to respond to local people’s concerns
- setting local force’s policing priorities and force budget
- working with local partners to prevent crime
- holding their Chief Constable to account for the performance of the force
- appointing, and where necessary dismissing, the Chief Constable
- taking on the functions and duties of fire and rescue authorities
If you refuse this FOI for any reason, I would like a full rationale of this refusal based on the official expectations of your role outlined above and at the URL provided.
I remind you that I am a repeat victim of crime which you are aware of.
I also remind you that Lancashire police settled a claim I brought against them for numerous malicious offences against me by police officers and I was awarded a substantial sum of money to ‘settle out of court’.
You are aware that I allege I am targeted by Lancashire police due to the fact I published the identity of a police informant. This is clarified by the fact Lancashire police charged me with malicious communications for publishing this identity which the courts found me not guilty as, for malicious communications to be proven, the communication must be false. I provided evidence that this police informant was indeed an informant by his own confession which satisfied the courts.
This should show, on balance, that Lancashire police do in fact have a motive to ‘frame me’ and this is what Operation Malaya was setup to do but failed.
If it is not possible to provide the information requested due to the information exceeding the cost of compliance limits identified in Section 12, please provide advice and assistance, under your Section 16 obligations, as to how I can refine my request to be included in the scope of the Act. In any case, if you can identify ways that my request could be refined please provide further advice and assistance to indicate this.
I look forward to your response within 20 working days, as stipulated by the Act.
Thank you for contacting the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner.
What you have to say is important to us and if a response is required/appropriate we will aim to reply to your message within 20 working days.
Please note, all information submitted by you in your email will be handled in accordance with current data protection law and our privacy notice.
Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire
Tel: 01772 533587
Deadline 24th June 2019