17/01/2025 to Herts Police:
Regarding Hertfordshire police review of the Bermuda police Service (BPS), I ask to be provided, form fist approach to the present:
1. The exchanges with Rena Lalgie, the Governor and the Governor’s office
2. The exchanges with the BPS
3. A copy of any questionnaire sent to officers
4. A copy of any questionnaire sent to the ‘Senior Leadership Team’
5. The Hertfordshire police resource associated; numbers, ranks and departments
6. The time associated with the review by these resources
7. The cost to Hertfordshire
8. The charges raised/invoiced for the review
18/02/2025 – Herts police clarification.
18/02/2025 – to Herts police re’ seeking clarification after the event:
As of 15/02/2025, you were in breach of the legislation; as a police constabulary you failed to comply with the law.
I do not accept clarification is required.
I believe your request for clarification should be clarified
I do not accept that, having apparent commenced searches pre 14/02/2025, you can seek clarification post 14/02/2025 and start the clock again
Note: having provided no clarification, Herts police responded to the request. It is evident clarification was not required – this appears to be an abuse of the FoI Act, conduct also employed by the FCDO about the subject – read more here.
28/02/2025 Herts response:
- One meeting was held with the Governor during the trip, organised by the BPS
- withheld – Section 41 – Information provided in confidence.
- information has been published on the website
- How would you describe the current culture, what are the positives and what are the areas for improvement. this does not appear to address the request
- Two people attended. One Police staff (A7) – Strategic Hub and one Inspector – Workforce Development
- One week preparation time, 1 week in Country, 1-week finalising report.
- No cost to Hertfordshire, this was covered entirely by the Foreign Commonwealth Development Office.
- Please contact Foreign Commonwealth Development Office
25/03/2025 an Internal Review was requested:
The requests and your responses have bene maintained under the numerical references initially utilised, the IR presentations appear referenced as upper and lower case alpha characters:
1 One meeting was held with the Governor during the trip, organised by the BPS.
A. Please provide the notes of this meeting, they fall to this request
a. As you may be aware, ICO guidance states that a Section 41 exemption may only be applied where the requested information comes from a source external to the authority. (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio…) In the light of this, I would like to request that you review this response. I am seeking your information, your notes.
b. According to ICO guidance, a Section 41 exemption can only be applied to the parts of the information that were provided in confidence, unless disclosing the remaining information would also breach the confidence of the source.
c. Section 81(2)(b) of the FOI Act makes it clear that in cases where the authority and confider are both government departments (or two Northern Ireland departments), this exemption cannot be used. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/200…). As this exemption ap-pears to have been incorrectly applied, please review your response.
d. ICO guidance says that when applying a Section 41 exemption the authority should be able to demonstrate that the “someone has a genuine interest in the contents remaining confidential”, but you have not included this information. (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio…). That the process was intended for public presentation/consumption and is specifically about concerns arising that are of public significance, it appears the exemption has been misapplied. Please review this decision and, if the exemption is upheld, demonstrate that the requested information has the ‘necessary quality of confidence’.
e. You have applied a Section 41 exemption to my request, but some of the information I have requested I doubt was provided in confidence and this stated confidence has not been evidenced. Please review this response and provide the remainder of the information. ICO guidance on this point can be seen at https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio….
f. As you may know, ICO guidance states that a Section 41 exemption can only apply where new information would be brought into the public domain. (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio…). What new information is being withheld?
g. As you may be aware, ICO guidance explains that one of the ways to ascertain whether release of information would constitute a breach of confidence is to consider whether it would be actionable in court, and then, whether such an action would be likely to succeed. It says that the authority needs to demonstrate its thinking on this point, which will also involve a version of the public interest test in which you balance the public good of any disclosure against the breach of confidence. (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio…) I note no such consideration. I would be grateful if you could review your response, and, if the exemption is upheld, provide details of the public interest test conducted around the decision.
h. The request extends generally to a contract/agreement. As stated in ICO guidance, a Section 41 exemption does not generally apply to contracts, and if it does, the main part of the contract can generally be provided with the sensitive information redact-ed. (https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisatio…). With this in mind would you please review your decision.
2. Hertfordshire Constabulary can confirm that it holds information in relation to this part of your request however, I am not obliged to supply the information you have requested. Such information is exempt under the following exemption:
Section 41 – Information provided in confidence.
The Section 41 exemption is a class based absolute exemption.
This means that the legislators have identified that there would be harm in disclosure and there is no need to evidence this or carry out a public interest test.
B. To what harm are you referring? How am I to concur or comment in the absence of clarity?
3. I can confirm that information relating to above has been published on the website.
These can be found in the report BPS Cultural Review_Final Report 2024 v3.1.pdf
This information is therefore exempt under Section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Section 21 provides that where information is available to you from another source, we do not have to provide further copies. The information you have requested is available on the website using the above link.
C. The questions are posed within the document and the responses. I am seeking the questionnaire and this will include any explanatory/covering correspondence or similar
4. How would you describe the current culture, what are the positives and what are the areas for improvement.
D. I am seeking the correspondence / questionnaire and this will include any explanatory/covering correspondence or similar
a. It appears to be the case the senior leadership team were asked no more than ‘How would you describe the current culture, what are the positives and what are the areas for improvement’. Please confirm
b. I anticipate receiving the information provided to the BPS management team that explains the process methodology, how the information is utilised, what they can expect to achieve from the process etc.
5. Two people attended. One Police staff (A7) – Strategic Hub and one Inspector – Workforce Development.
6. One week preparation time, 1 week in Country, 1-week finalising report.
E. Please clarify the ‘time’; how many hours each day by how many – this will extend to approach, consideration, acceptance, attendance (travel) working hours etc.
7. No cost to Hertfordshire, this was covered entirely by the Foreign Commonwealth Development Office.
F. How is there no cost to Hertfordshire given the association of your staff? You appear to be stating that the costs were reimbursed by the Home Office – ergo, there was a cost however it was met by another. Please provide the cost
a. It appears your constabulary has sufficient staffing to spare people to address an overseas attendance and 3 weeks absent from local commitments. It is difficult to reconcile the ‘no cost’ response.
8. Please contact Foreign Commonwealth Development Office
G. I have sought information from your constabulary. Clearly there is information; you are directing me elsewhere for this and I assume this is a well intentioned direction because there is information. You appear to have incurred cost (see F above), these costs were covered by the FCDO. You have referred me to the FCDO for the information. However, I have sought the information you possess. Please provide this, at the very least I would expect to be provided your submission of charges (for reimbursement) to the FCDO, their response and ultimate settlement.