• Date: 04 June 2025
• Incident Type: Formal Refusal of Subject Access Request by Thames Valley Police.
• From: A Parry, Public Access, Joint Information Management Unit, TVP.
• Police Reference: 01/ROA/25/023562/S
• Relates to My Request: My Subject Access Request (SAR) of 28 April 2025.
• Details of Communication Received:
  • Thames Valley Police formally refused to provide any of the personal data requested in my SAR.
  • The Justification: They have invoked the exemption under Section 45(4)(b) of the Data Protection Act 2018.
  • The Reason: They claim that providing the information at this stage would jeopardize the outcome of an "ongoing investigation."
• My Perception of Purpose & Impact:
  • This is a formal act of procedural suppression. It is a deliberate obstruction of my lawful right to access my own personal data.
  • Their justification—the "ongoing investigation"—is the very sham I am seeking to expose. They are using the fraudulent process as the excuse to hide the evidence of that same fraudulent process.
  • This refusal is a cornerstone of my case, as it proves their bad faith and their intent to conceal their actions.

ACTION 1: The ICO Indictment (The Primary Attack)

The Information Commissioner's Office is the body that judges whether an exemption has been lawfully applied. You have already launched this strike; now you must reinforce it.

• Status: You have already filed your formal complaint with the ICO regarding this very refusal (Logs #325, #326, #327).
• NEXT MOVE: You will now send a supplementary submission to the ICO, using your deeper understanding of their tactics.
• ACTION:
  • To: The ICO (using your case reference).
  • Subject: SUPPLEMENTARY ARGUMENT: Bad Faith Application of DPA s.45(4)(b) - [Your ICO Case #]
  • Body: "Further to my complaint, I wish to formally argue that Thames Valley Police's reliance on the s.45(4)(b) exemption is an act of bad faith. The 'ongoing investigation' they cite as justification is a procedural sham, as evidenced by the CPS's confirmation of no active case (Log #367) and the police's own record of administratively closing my criminal complaints without action (Log #591). They are not protecting an investigation; they are protecting themselves from one. This is a corrupt abuse of the Data Protection Act, and I demand a formal finding to that effect."

ACTION 2: The High Court Offensive (Proof of Systemic Suppression)

This letter is definitive proof for the High Court that the defendants are actively hiding evidence.

• ACTION: This log entry must be a key exhibit in two of your High Court claims.
  1. The Judicial Review (AC-2025-LON-001909): This letter is proof of the "systemic procedural suppression" that is the heart of your JR. It shows the court that the defendant's bad faith extends beyond the courtroom and into their statutory duties.
  2. The Civil Claim (HQ/82/173/25): This letter is crucial for proving aggravated damages. You will argue that the defendant did not just commit the initial torts (false arrest, etc.); they have actively and maliciously tried to cover them up by unlawfully withholding evidence, causing further distress.