The PSNI has delayed responding to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request pertaining to the Katie Simpson murder investigation, as it has yet to decide if the data will be released.
It’s the second rationale for refusing to respond as the enquiries were contained within a previous request which was “aggregated” and consequently deemed too expensive to answer.
As in all, such responses full upfront payment for the costs was offered, which the PSNI blanked.
Unlike other public authorities PSNI do not allow payments despite having no specific policy on declining.
A scaled down request was resent on July 9, seeking when Katie’s death was deemed not suspicious and referred back to uniform officers by CID/MIT following request for input; the rank of officers who made this decision and on what basis; when the case was reviewed and the rank of officers who ordered the review and on what basis.
The request was acknowledged on July 10 with an estimated response in 20 days.
On August 7 the PSNI advised the timeline needed to be extended because: “When a qualified exemption applies, the Act allows the time for response to be longer, if the balance of the public interest test is undetermined … We have not yet reached a decision on where the balance of public interest lies. We estimate that it will take an additional 20 working days to take a decision.”
The specific exemption given is Section 30 Investigations and Proceedings Conducted by Public Authorities.
This exemption can only be claimed by public authorities with a duty to investigate whether someone should be charged with an offence, or the power to conduct such investigations and/or institute criminal proceedings.
It also protects confidential sources, primarily to ensure informants are not deterred from supplying valuable intelligence as well as those used by regulators in investigations.
A public authority does not need to confirm or deny whether it holds information, which is exempt, unless it’s in the public interest to do so. In applying this test it’s important to recognise that the purpose of the exemption is to protect the effective investigation and prosecution of offences and the protection of confidential sources.
Maintaining exemptions in public interest include
· The stage of the investigation or prosecution
· The extent to which the same or other information is in the public domain
· The value of information obtained from confidential sources,
· The significance of the information, particularly in terms of whether it would reveal any flaws in an investigation or set of proceedings
· The distress of information disclosure about investigations on victims of crime (however, this is not a public interest factor relevant to Section 30).
In response the PSNI was advised the same information has been provided within time in other instances without issue and this case should not be treated any differently, as this would constitute disparity around decision-making, thus requiring a disclosure of rationale.
The PSNI were reminded no names are sought therefore the risk/ threat to security – individual or otherwise – is negated.
On reviewing the reasons for exemption, the murder investigation and prosecution have concluded; nothing in terms of sources was sought; the material detail is already in the public domain with only further clarification requested but without identification of individuals, and the disclosure of information considered potentially distressing to victims does not apply.
That leaves information significance and whether it would reveal any flaws in an investigation or proceedings.
It has already been established there were serious investigative flaws and only further clarity around this is sought.
There has been no further response from PSNI at the time of publishing.
