• Date: 01 July 2025
  • Time: 06:50 AM BST
  • Incident Type: Formal Request for Internal Review of FOI Refusal Submitted to Police.
  • Action Taken By: Myself (WASEEM BEY [email protected], signed as "Gov Waseem. The highest form of office : OFFICE of the MAN.").
  • Action Directed To (Email "To" line): Public Access TV [email protected] (K Slattery, Public Access Officer).
  • Cc (Email "Cc" line): Jack Rankin MP [email protected].
  • Bcc: [email protected].
  • Subject: 01/FOI/25/015391/U
  • Relates to TVP FOI Response: Their letter dated 30 June 2025 (FOIA Ref: 01/FOI/25/015391/U, Log #485), which refused my FOI request of 02 June 2025 (about TVP-Abri coordination, S.25 agreements, internal comms) with an NCND response citing S.40(5) & S.30(3).
  • Attachment Sent with Email: Internal Review Request - FOIA Ref 01_FOI_25_015391_U.pdf (282K)
  • Details of My Internal Review Request Document:
    • Stated I am requesting an internal review of TVP's refusal, asserting their NCND stance is procedurally flawed and amounts to institutional evasion.
    • Grounds for Internal Review Asserted:
      1. Right to Remedy: Cited legal maxim "Ubi jus ibi remedium"; refusal denies recourse.
      2. Proactive Pursuit of Rights: Cited legal maxim "Equity aids the vigilant..."; refusal obstructs justice.
      3. Evidence-Based Policing: Cited Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] stressing importance of transparency; refusal undermines this.
      4. Health Impact of Institutional Neglect: Stated refusal exacerbates my health crisis (panic attacks, insomnia, physical symptoms, citing Logs #147, #154 - from your PDF log).
    • Legal Clarifications & Procedural Failures Asserted:
      1. Misapplication of Section 40(5): Argued my request targeted institutional coordination/contracts with Abri, not personal data. Stated redaction under DPA 2018 Schedule 2 is the lawful remedy for embedded staff names, not blanket denial.
      2. Invalid Use of Section 30(3): Claimed the "investigation" justification is speculative/unfounded as CPS confirmed no prosecution ongoing (citing Log #451 - this seems to be a general reference to CPS confirming no case in some context, e.g. Log #367). Argued request spans 2016-2025 and includes policy/financial records, not just investigative data. Cited Bournmouth Borough Council v IC [2011] requiring specific prejudice to be shown.
      3. Procedural Concerns – Signature and Command Authority: Stated the response letter from Log #460 (your June 25th IR request) bears the title of suspended Chief Constable Jason Hogg, is unsigned, and "D. Humphries" is unverified, raising questions of authenticity and potential forgery (Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 s.3). (Note: you are bringing in concerns from a different FOI response to show a pattern of procedural issues).
      4. Public Interest in Disclosure: Argued demonstrable public interest in transparency concerning TVP-Abri coordination, citing alleged police overreach (Log #25), discriminatory targeting (Logs #304, #446, #459), and procedural abuse (Logs #451, #456-#457).
    • Case Law Cited: Tindall v CC of TVP [2024], R (B) v Sec of State for Justice [2012] (institutional processes not personal data), Corporate Officer of House of Commons v IC [2008] (public interest transparency > privacy for institutional functions), R (Catt) v ACPO [2015] (disproportionate restrictions violate ECHR Art 8).
    • Investigation Strawman (Section 30(3)): Reiterated TVP implies active investigation, but no case exists (CPS confirmed no prosecution, Log #451). Legal basis for S.30(3) requires specific prejudice (Bournmouth Borough Council v IC [2011]).
    • Definition of "Public Authority": Stated TVP and Abri qualify as public authorities under FOIA.
    • Remedy Demanded / Order Issued by Me:
      1. Identify the officer responsible for the refusal and verify their authority.
      2. Explain the use of Jason Hogg's name/title post-suspension (on other letters).
      3. Confirm if responsive records exist; if so, redact personal data and disclose the remainder per FOIA s.1.
      4. Conduct searches using Abri's prior names (Yarlington, Radian).
      5. Provide the original FOIA text for my request (Log #276 mentioned - you are referencing a different FOI text here, clarity may be needed on which one you mean for this specific review).
      6. Explain why their letter has the wrong date (2024 instead of 2025).
    • Stated failure to substantively respond within 7 working days will trigger ICO escalation (supported by Log #460 - this TVP response itself) and complaints to Parliament.
    • Asserted no expectation of privacy in public duties (citing ICO/Durham County Council v IC [2012]).
  • My Perception of Purpose & Impact:
    • My purpose is to formally challenge TVP's legally flawed and evasive "Neither Confirm Nor Deny" FOI response (Log #485) by demanding a statutory internal review.
    • I am systematically dismantling their justifications for using the S.40 and S.30 exemptions, providing legal arguments, case law, and referencing my own logs to demonstrate their misapplication of the FOIA.
    • The specific demands for remedy are designed to compel TVP to conduct a proper review, perform adequate searches, and disclose the information I am entitled to (with appropriate redactions).
    • The 7-working-day deadline and threat of escalation to the ICO and Parliament are intended to ensure a prompt and serious handling of my internal review request.
    • This action is crucial for obtaining transparency regarding TVP-Abri coordination and holding TVP accountable for what I perceive as strategic non-disclosure and procedural misuse.
  • Context/Link to Other Events: This is a direct response to TVP's FOI refusal letter (Log #485, FOIA Ref: 01/FOI/25/015391/U). It links to my previous FOI requests and my analysis of TVP's procedural irregularities.
  • Evidence: Saved copy of the sent email and the attached "Internal Review Request - FOIA Ref 01_FOI_25_015391_U.pdf".