After previously refusing to answer a series of Freedom of Information requests into the Katie Simpson murder investigation, firstly citing costs and potential public interest infringements, the PSNI have doubled done deeming some enquiries “vexatious”.
While some points were answered, these were minimal compared to the information sought, all of which was highly relevant in the extremely disturbing handling of the Armagh woman’s case from the outset and the investigation into her murderer, Jonathan Creswell.
The first FOI requested the date Katie’s death was deemed non-suspicious and when it was referred back from CID to uniform officers, following request for input.
It was also asked what rank(s) made this decision and on what basis and when the matter was reviewed, and the rank(s) who ordered this, also on what basis.
The only part of this particular enquiry to be answered was Katie’s death was classified non-suspicious referred back to uniform on the same day – 11 August 2020 – two days after her death
The remaining matters around who made this decision and why were blanked with PSNI deeming these “vexatious.”
Similarly the PSNI were asked to clarify the dates the Coroner was informed of Katie’s death and when the pathologist found death was non-suspicious.
These were branded “vexatious”.
Finally the PSNI were asked on what date a Senior Investigating Officer was appointed / had any role / involvement / and ended involvement from the date of incident on 3 August 2020 until Creswell was charged on 6 March 2021.
While these questions were not deemed vexatious (as yet) the PSNI refused to answer, contending this information is exempt from disclosure.
They cited two elements of the Freedom of Information Act cited for this decision Section 40 (2) which relates to personal information, however the PSNI were reminded no names/identities were sought therefore the risk/ threat to security – individual or otherwise – is negated.
In addition, a murder investigation is a public matter therefore could not fall into personal information.
Section 30 (1) was also relied upon which covers investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities and used this to certify the requested information as except
The legislation clearly states 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, to ensure informants are not deterred from supplying valuable intelligence.
A public authority does not need to confirm or deny whether it holds exempt information, unless it’s in the public interest to do so. In applying this test it’s important to recognise that the purpose of exemption is to protect effective investigations, prosecutions of offences and confidential sources.
Maintaining exemptions under public interest include
· The stage of investigation or prosecution
· The extent the same/ other information is in the public domain
· The value of information obtained from confidential sources
· The significance of information, particularly whether it would reveal any flaws in an investigation
On reviewing these reasons, the murder investigation and prosecution have concluded; nothing in terms of sources was sought and the material detail is already in the public domain with only further clarification requested but without identification of individuals
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.
The refusals to answer these FOIs are currently under review and the Information Commissioner has been put on advanced notice of pending complaints.
The PSNI are not commenting on any aspect of the case while investigations into officer conduct are ongoing.
