The full text of an email from Thames Valley Police in which they refuse to answer a number of questions is reproduced below. I include the pretext stated by Thames Valley Police for refusing to answer the questions I posed to Thames Valley Police.
I anticipate that I may, in due course, post in more detail about why the information requested is relevant to establishing how Dr. David Kelly died and why Thames Valley Police may wish to conceal the answers to the questions below.
Dear Dr Watt
Reference No: RFI2010000848, RFI2010000849, RFI2010000850, RFI2010000857
I write in connection with the above recent requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
For clarity I have repeated these requests below:
With respect to the vehicle with a communications mast on it (described by Janice Kelly in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry at Lines 7 and 8 on Page 53 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm ),
1. At what time on 17th July 2003 or 18th July 2003 was the presence of the vehicle at the Kelly home requested?
2. At what time on 18th July 2003 did the vehicle arrive at the Kelly house?
3. On whose authority was the presence of the vehicle requested?
4. Where, in July 2003, was the vehicle normally based?
5. From what location did the vehicle travel to the Kelly house?
6. Which organisation(s) owned the vehicle and its associated communications equipment?
7. What was the make and model of the communications equipment on the vehicle?
8. What was the maximum range of the communications equipment on the vehicle?
With respect to the communications mast on it (described by Janice Kelly in evidence to the Hutton Inquiry at Lines 9 and 10 on Page 53 at http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans24.htm ),
1. At what time on 17th July 2003 or 18th July 2003 was the presence of the "45-foot" communications mast at the Kelly home requested?
2. At what time on 18th July 2003 did the "45-foot" communications mast arrive at the Kelly house?
3. On whose authority was the presence of the "45-foot" communications mast requested?
4. Where, in July 2003, was the "45-foot" communications mast normally based?
5. From what location did the "45-foot" communications mast travel to the Kelly house?
6. Which organisation(s) owned the mast and its associated communications equipment?
7. What was the make and model of the communications equipment related to the mast?
8. What was the maximum range of the communications equipment related to the mast?
9. Is it correct that the "45-foot" mast described by Janice Kelly was, in fact, 110 foot high?
I wish to ask the following questions with respect to Dr. David Kelly's mobile phone:
1. On how many occasions was Dr. Kelly's mobile phone switched off on 17th July 2003 and 18th July 2003?
2. For each such occasion, what time was it switched off and in which locality was it situated at the time it was switched off? (I understand that when a mobile phone is switched off it signals to the nearest mast. The location of the relevant mast(s) is sufficient detail for the purpose of the question.) Additionally, if it is possible to identify the time and location at which it was switched on again, I would also like that information.
3. Were any calls made from Dr. Kelly's home phone number to the mobile? For each such occasion, at what time was/were such call(s) made?
4. Did the telephone number for the mobile phone found in Dr. Kelly's Barbour jacket pocket and Dr. Kelly's known mobile phone number correspond? In other words, was it checked that they were the same? And were they the same?
5. Was the battery of the mobile phone found in the Barbour jacket pocket charged sufficient for the mobile phone to be used to receive incoming calls or to initiate an outgoing call?
6. Were any outgoing calls made on Dr. Kelly's mobile phone after 13.00 on 17th July 2003? If so, how many such calls were made and at what time was each call made?
The following individuals were documented, in evidence given to the Hutton Inquiry, to be close to or in contact with the body of Dr. David Kelly at Harrowdown Hill on 18th July 2003 before the creation and search of the Common Approach Path.
For each of those individuals I wish to ask what forensic or other evidence was found during the search of the Common Approach Path, or otherwise, that demonstrated that they had been in proximity to the body found at Harrowdown Hill?
1. Louise Holmes
2. Paul Chapman
3. DC Graham Coe
4. Vanessa Hunt
5. Dave Bartlett
6. PC Dean Andrew Franklin
7. PC Jonathan Martyn Sawyer
It would, I suggest, be best should any such evidence have been found if the answer is formulated in a list with, for example, "No evidence" beside each name to which that accurately applies. And a description of the evidence for any individual for which evidence of presence was found.
Alternatively, if no forensic or other relevant evidence was found for the presence of any of the named individuals then a blanket "No evidence" would suffice.
We have previously responded to 14 Freedom of Information Act requests from you on this subject matter (our references RFI2010000727, RFI2010000728, RFI2010000729, RFI2010000730, RFI2010000731, RFI2010000732, RFI2010000737, RFI2010000738, RFI2010000756, RFI2010000757, RFI2010000758, RFI2010000768, RFI2010000819, and RFI20100000840).
Please note that the relevant costs incurred in responding to those requests exceeded the “appropriate limit” provided for in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.
We take the view that all your requests have been for the same or similar information (ie. detailed information relating to the investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly) and all have been received within a period of 60 working days. For the purposes of calculating the likely costs of dealing with your current requests, we have therefore aggregated all requests from you on this subject matter.
We estimate that the costs of determining whether or not we hold the information requested in your four most recent requests would exceed the “appropriate limit” provided for in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004. We have reached this estimate based on the detailed nature of the information you have requested and our experience of the time taken to deal with previous requests on this subject matter.
By virtue of section 12 of the FOIA, we are therefore not obliged to confirm whether or not we hold the information requested in your four most recent requests and this letter represents a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the FOIA.
Please also note that future requests by you on this subject may be regarded as “vexatious” and refused pursuant to section 14 of the FOIA. In our view they are imposing a significant and disproportionate burden on police officers and staff.
In accordance with our duty under section 16 of the FOIA, I would invite you to contact me via this e-mail address should you require any advice or assistance in relation to the application of sections 12 or 14 of the FOIA or in any other respect.
I have attached our Complaints Procedure to this email as the first stage of appealing this decision is by writing to me and requesting an Internal Review, detailing why you believe our decision is not in accordance with the FOIA.