shirleymckie.myfastforum.org

Bryan · Joined: 01 May 2007 Posts: 25

You know, I get so angry,
For ten years nobody, but nobody, gave Kevin's family any support.
Where were all you good guys ten years ago?

kevin donald · Joined: 29 Oct 2007 Posts: 88

So true bryan, and i say sorry.

the only injustice i knew about ten years ago was steele, campbell, hill , conlin.

i feel sorry for your mothers loss, and for kevin,s family that lost a child so young.
to be true i did not think about it till it struck home for me.

and i am sorry for that.

you only think about it when it happens to one of your own.
then read into things and see that there are lots out there suffering injustice.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

Bryan

What i was getting at is simple: The Executive also have a duty to protect our convention rights, all our convention rights, "Human Rights"

sorry i forgot to link the case, Here it is now:
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page495.asp

The last one at the bottom of page

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

The Big Vote

Should Latimer Resign

Vote below

http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/

See result here:

http://www.johnogroat-journal.co....hp/poll=current/stat_code=vote_ok

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

Money over Justice

It would seem the FOI Commissioner has seen fit to decide that money matters more than justice.
Please take some time to read the following decision.

Decision:
Decision 226/2007 Mr Allan McLeod and the Chief Constable of Northern Constabulary
Request for names and ranks of police officers involved in a specific investigation
Applicant: Allan McLeod
Authority: Chief Constable of Northern Constabulary
Case No: 200701091
Decision Date: 6 December 2007
Kevin Dunion
Scottish Information Commissioner
Request for names and ranks of all police officers involved in a specific investigation, as well as those interviewed during an enquiry into the same investigation – section 12(1) of FOISA – Excessive Costs – upheld by the Commissioner
Relevant Statutory Provisions and Other Sources
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA): sections 1(1) (General entitlement) and 12(1) (Excessive cost of compliance)
The Freedom of Information (Fees for Required Disclosure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the Fees Regulations): regulations 3 (Projected costs) and 5 (Excessive cost – prescribed amount)
The full text of each of these provisions is reproduced in the Appendix to this decision. The Appendix forms part of this decision.
Facts
Mr Allan McLeod (Mr McLeod) requested the names and ranks of all police officers involved in the investigations into his nephew's death in 1997, and also the names and ranks of officers who were interviewed in a 2002 enquiry into the investigations, and who were involved in the 1997 investigations or the handling of complaints made by the McLeod family.The Chief Constable of Northern Constabulary (Northern Constabulary) responded by advising Mr McLeod that it considered the information exempt from disclosure in terms of sections 12(1) and 38(1)(b) of FOISA.Mr McLeod was not satisfied with this response and asked Northern Constabulary to review its decision. Northern Constabulary carried out a review and, as a result, notified Mr McLeod that it upheld its original decision. Mr McLeod remained dissatisfied and applied to the Commissioner for a decision.
Following an investigation, the Commissioner found that Northern Constabulary had dealt with Mr McLeod's request for information in accordance with Part 1 of FOISA.In particular, he concluded that the cost of complying with Mr McLeod's request would exceed the prescribed limit of £600 set out in section 12(1) of FOISA.He did not require Northern Constabulary to take any action.
Background
1.On 4 June 2007, Mr McLeod wrote to Northern Constabulary requesting the following information:
The names and ranks of every police officer who had a connection or involvement with the initial investigation into the death of his nephew in February 1997, and the second enquiry held in August 1997.
The names and ranks of every police officer interviewed by Chief Constable Andrew Cameron's team as part of the 2002 inquiry into the investigations, and who had a connection or involvement with the 1997 investigations and his family's complaints.
2.On 28 June 2007, Northern Constabulary wrote to Mr McLeod in response to his request for information. It advised Mr McLeod that it considered the information exempt in terms of section 38(1)(b) of FOISA, in that it constituted the personal data of third parties.Northern Constabulary also advised Mr McLeod that the costs for providing him with the information he requested would exceed those specified in The Freedom of Information (Fees for Required Disclosure) (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (the Fee Regulations), and that therefore it also considered the information did not have to be provided in terms of section 12(1). In the same letter, Northern Constabulary provided Mr McLeod with the names and ranks of senior officers who were based at Wick Police Station at the time.
3.Mr McLeod wrote to Northern Constabulary on 2 July 2007, requesting a review of its decision to withhold information, as he believed that the information was not exempt from disclosure.
4.On 1 August 2007, Northern Constabulary wrote to notify Mr McLeod of the outcome of its review. Northern Constabulary argued that it still considered the information did not have to be provided in terms of sections 12(1) and that it was exempt under section 38(1)(b).It also now considered that the information was exempt in terms of section 26(a) of FOISA.
5.Mr McLeod wrote to my Office on 6 August 2007, stating that he was dissatisfied with the outcome of Northern Constabulary's review and applying to me for a decision in terms of section 47(1) of FOISA.
6.The application was validated by establishing that Mr McLeod had made a request for information to a Scottish public authority and had applied to me for a decision only after asking the authority to review its response to that request. The case was then allocated to an investigating officer.
The Investigation
7.On 21 September 2007, Northern Constabulary was notified in writing that an application had been received from Mr McLeod and was invited to comment on the application in terms of section 49(3)(a) of FOISA.Northern Constabulary was also asked to provide my Office with detailed calculations estimating the projected cost of responding to Mr McLeod's request. In particular, Northern Constabulary was asked to include a breakdown of the cost of staff time, the type of work that was required to be undertaken to satisfy the request and the number of hours that compliance with the request was likely to take.
8.Northern Constabulary responded to this letter on 9 October 2007, providing a detailed explanation of the steps that would be required to identify and provide the information requested by Mr McLeod.
9.In later correspondence, Northern Constabulary was also asked to explain why it was able easily to provide Mr McLeod with the names of senior officers (in response to his request) but that it could not provide him with the names of junior officers without exceeding the prescribed limit for the purposes of section 12(1) of FOISA. Northern Constabulary explained that it had supplied Mr McLeod with the names of senior officers based at Wick Station (at the relevant time) as the information was easily accessible and was, in fact, already in the public domain.Northern Constabulary clarified that there may have been more senior officers involved in the case than those based at Wick Station, but in order to establish if this was the case, it would have to search through all of the documentation it held about this matter.
10.I will consider Northern Constabulary's submissions on what would be required in order to respond to Mr McLeod's request in my analysis and findings below.
The Commissioner's Analysis and Findings
11.In coming to a decision on this matter, I have considered all of the information and the submissions that have been presented to me by both Mr McLeod and Northern Constabulary and I am satisfied that no matter of relevance has been overlooked.
The information request
12.Mr McLeod has requested :
The names and ranks of every police officer who had a connection or involvement with the initial investigation into the death of his nephew in February 1997, and the second enquiry held in August 1997.
The names and ranks of every police officer interviewed by Chief Constable Andrew Cameron's team as part of the 2002 inquiry into the investigations, and who had a connection or involvement with the 1997 investigations and his family's complaints.
Section 12 - Excessive cost of compliance
13.Section 12 of FOISA provides that a Scottish public authority need not comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request will exceed the amount set out in the Fees Regulations (currently £600).
14.The projected costs that the public authority can take into account in relation to the request for information are, according to regulation 3 of the Fees Regulations, the total costs, whether direct or indirect, which the public authority reasonably estimates it will incur in locating, retrieving and providing the information requested. The public authority may not charge for the cost of ascertaining whether it actually holds the information or whether or not it should provide the information. The maximum hourly rate a public authority can charge for staff time is £15 an hour.
Names and rank of officers involved in the initial investigations
15.Northern Constabulary has advised me that it cannot determine which officers had a connection with the 1997 investigations into the death of Mr McLeod's nephew without reading all of the files it holds in relation to the case.It has explained that the files relating to the case are stored on the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) and consist of 5 different categories of information type. Specifically, Northern Constabulary has confirmed that HOMLES holds 383 Actions, 254 Statements, 26 Messages, 10 Personal descriptive forms, and 270 "Other" documents in relation to the initial investigation into the death of Mr McLeod's nephew.Northern Constabulary has provided the following explanation of what each 'information type' covers:
Actions: an action is a written instruction which details an enquiry to be carried out and names the person raising the action and the officer(s) carrying out the action
Statements: witness statements which may contain officers' names within them, if mentioned by the witness, and will also have the name of the officer taking the statement at the end of each document.Statements can consist of many pages of A4.
Messages: are short pieces of text that usually consist of a few lines
Personal descriptive forms: contains details of a witness and the officer completing the form
Other Documents: consist of anything from a photocopy of a driving license to a club membership list.
16.Northern Constabulary submitted that as the sought information is of a sensitive nature, it would require a Grade 6 member of staff, with an hourly rate of £11.92 to read through all of the documents.
17.Northern Constabulary based their calculation on an assumption that it would take an average of 15 minutes to read each witness statement, and concluded subsequently that it would take 63.6 hours to read through all 254 statements, at a cost of £754.92.
18.Additionally, Northern Constabulary estimated that it would take an average of 5 minutes to read each of the 383 actions on the HOLMES system, and so concluded that in total it would take 31.9 hours at a cost of £380.45 to review each of these.
19.Northern Constabulary therefore concluded that, even excluding the remaining documentation stored on HOLMES (which it believed would only take a few hours to scan through),, it would cost significantly more than £600 to provide Mr McLeod with the information he is seeking relating to the officers' involved with the 1997 investigations into the death of Mr McLeod's nephew.
Names and rank of officers interviewed as part of the Inquiry
20.Northern Constabulary has also confirmed that it holds 898 documents in relation to the Inquiry conducted by Chief Constable Cameron into the initial investigation into the death of Mr McLeod's nephew.Northern Constabulary has indicated that while some of the documents can be scanned very briefly in seconds, others are quite lengthy and could take anything from 15 to 25 minutes to read.
21.To address the differences in document size and type, Northern Constabulary has determined that it would take 15 minutes to read each of the 898 documents relating to the Inquiry by Chief Constable Cameron.Based on this, Northern Constabulary has contended that it would take 224.5 hours to read all of the Inquiry documents, at a cost of some £2676.04, which far exceeds the £600 cost limit set out in the Fees Regulations.
22.In total, Northern Constabulary has argued that fulfilling the two parts of Mr McLeod's request would cost £3,713.41.
23.I have considered the arguments and calculations submitted by Northern Constabulary in this case and it is my view that Northern Constabulary has correctly applied section 12 of FOISA when responding to Mr McLeod's request.I accept that the sensitivity of the case is such that a member of staff at Grade 6 would be required to access the information.In considering the scope of Mr McLeod's request, I also accept that the Grade 6 officer would be required to read all of the held files in order to identify the information requested by Mr McLeod.In addition, it is clear to me that even if the time for examination of each document were reduced to 5 minutes per item (which I would not regard as practicable) the costs incurred would still exceed £600 for each part of Mr McLeod's request.
24.I am therefore satisfied that the cost of supplying the information requested by Mr McLeod, on a reasonable estimate, would exceed £600. Consequently, I do not require Northern Constabulary to provide Mr McLeod with the information he requested.
25.As I have found that Northern Constabulary were correct to withhold the information requested by Mr McLeod under section 12(1) of FOISA, I will not go on to consider the application of the exemptions contained in section 38(1)(b) or 26(a) of FOISA.
Decision
I find that the Chief Constable of Northern Constabulary acted in accordance with Part 1 of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) in responding to Mr McLeod's request for information, as the cost of complying with the request would exceed the cost prescribed in regulations made under section 12(1) of FOISA.
Appeal
Should either Mr McLeod or the Chief Constable of Northern Constabulary wish to appeal against this decision, there is an appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law only.Any such appeal must be made within 42 days after the date of intimation of this decision notice.
Signed on behalf of Kevin Dunion, Scottish Information Commissioner, under delegated authority granted on 14 November 2007.

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 88

FAMILY PRESS POLICE CHIEF TO KEEP PLEDGE ON CASE REVIEW

Wed 09 January 2008

Northern Constabulary yesterday insisted it was dealing fairly with a request for a fresh investigation into the unexplained death of a young Wick man.

The family of Kevin McLeod last month welcomed Chief Constable Ian Latimer's pledge to consider their plea for another force to carry out a "cold case" review.

But they were unhappy to learn that Mr Latimer is following this up at a meeting today with Highlands and Islands area procurator fiscal Andrew Laing.

Mr McLeod's uncle, Allan McLeod, yesterday said the family understood the chief constable's discussions would be with staff at the Crown Office in Edinburgh.

He said: "We were surprised, disappointed and deeply suspicious to learn from Mr Latimer that he is meeting Mr Laing about our request.

"Mr Laing, after all, was involved in the previous investigations and we understood from Mr Latimer that he would be speaking with the deputy Crown agent."

Mr Latimer met with the dead man's parents, June and Hugh McLeod and Allan McLeod, in Wick last month when he apologised to them for shortcomings in how the force has dealt with the family.

That was accepted while the family welcomed the chief constable's commitment to consider their request for a fresh probe into the circumstances of the 23-year-old man's death in Wick harbour in February 1997.

But Allan McLeod yesterday warned their relations with Mr Latimer could easily be fractured again.

He said: "If we don't get a review by an independent force, we'll be back at loggerheads as the unreserved apologies tendered by Mr Latimer will be meaningless and worthless.

"The only way we'll be satisfied is with an independent force coming in and carrying out a full, cold-case review into the evidence that was looked at and the new evidence which has emerged."

A Northern Constabulary spokesman yesterday insisted that the family's request was being dealt with in an entirely fair and objective manner.

A spokesman said: "Mr Latimer is doing everything that he told the family he would do. The first step is for the chief constable to speak with Mr Laing and he is doing that tomorrow."

The McLeods are today to meet with police board convener Norman Macleod, vice-convener Ian Ross and clerk Ros Pieroni.

This follows a recommendation from Police Complaints Commissioner Ian Martin that the board apologise for the way the family's complaints were dealt with and they answer any questions the family may have.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

Cold Case Review

Allan lets hope and pray this is the year for Justice.
Lets also hope and pray this cold case review takes off and you and your family can get some kind of redress.
I noticed in the scotsman comments the other day another case calling into question Northern Constabulary's handling of the rape of a 14 year old girl.
By the sounds of it this family have gone through the same nightmare as your own family with police not properly investigating their case and ignoring evidence crucial to any charges that might have been brought had there been proper investigation.
I mentioned it and highlighted the comments here:
Headlined, Scotsman Oppression.

http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/ftopic8-150.php

Can you shed any light on the case? Would be appreciated

Wullie

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 88

Press & Journal 10 Jan 08.
Now family tell police board: Give us justice

Pressure was growing last night for a new inquiry into the mystery death of a young north man after members of a police board apologised to his family for the......

allan mcleod · Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 88

NOW FAMILY TELL POLICE BOARD: GIVE US JUSTICE

10 January 2008

Pressure was growing last night for a new inquiry into the mystery death of a young north man after members of a police board apologised to his family for the way the original investigation was handled.

Kevin McLeod's parents say only a cold-case review of the circumstances surrounding this death 10 years ago will restore their faith in Northern Constabulary.

They have already received an apology from the force's chief constable, and yesterday held lengthy talks with senior representatives of the Northern Joint Police Board.

During the three-and-a-quarter-hour meeting, the family received a full apology for mistakes made in the initial investigation and for the mishandling of their subsequent series of complaints.

Speaking after the meeting in Wick, board convener Norman Macleod admitted that the apology was overdue.

He also agreed to pursue the family's request for an outside force to investigate how their 24-year-old son died in February 1997.

The issue was discussed by Chief Constable Ian Latimer and Highlands and Islands area procurator fiscal Andrew Laing yesterday.

Mr McLeod's body was found in Wick harbour after he disappeared during a night out with friends.

He had drowned but a post-mortem examination revealed abdominal injuries severe enough to prove fatal.

At a fatal accident inquiry, Sheriff Ian Cameron said he could not rule out the possibility of foul play.

His parents Hugh and June McLeod and uncle Allan McLeod are convinced he was brutally beaten up.

After yesterday's apology from police board members, Allan McLeod said: "The only way to restore faith in the police board and Northern Constabulary is for an independent cold-case review.

"Otherwise we will be back at stage one, accusing the police of the cover-up of all cover-ups.

"This was a murder and the police and the board have been heavily criticised. We appreciate the apologies but the only way forward is to have the case solved.

"If, as a result, a cold-case review brings more criticism on Northern Constabulary, and certain police officers, then so be it.

"We will not give up our fight for justice until those people who killed Kevin are brought to justice."

Norman Macleod, who was appointed board convener last year, said he and vice-convener Ian Ross had apologised to the family on behalf of the board.

The apology was one of the recommendations in the recent damning report issued by Scottish Police Complaints Commissioner Jim Martin.

Mr Macleod said: "We offered an apology to the family both in relation to the shortcomings in the initial investigation and in the way the family's complaints were dealt with.

"I think it would have been better if we had acknowledged the shortcomings and given the family an apology much earlier."

He said the board has acted on the 13 recommendations of an independent review by Central Scotland Chief Constable Andrew Cameron into how the family's complaints were dealt with.

Mr Macleod said: "We ensured that all these recommendations were actioned and we have now got a better service."

He said the force has overhauled its procedures for dealing with deaths.

"If a similar incident occurred today, it would be addressed in a significantly different fashion."

Mr Macleod said the board does not have the power to authorise another force to carry out a new investigation.

But he added: "We have listened very carefully to the concerns and have taken them on board. We will discuss them with Northern Constabulary and hopefully help get a resolution of them."

June McLeod later renewed the family's plea for a fresh investigation.

She said: "That is the one thing we want them to do for us. We want an outside force to come in and re-investigate Kevin's death.

"That is all we're asking them to do and I don't think that is too much after all we've been put through over the past 11 years. Surely we deserve it, as does Kevin."

Allan McLeod said the family had told the board representatives about their "disappointment and disgust" over the way they had been treated.

He said: "They gave us their full, unreserved apologies, which we accepted."

But he added that a new investigation was essential if the family are to rest.

He said: "It's the only way for them to make us go away. Otherwise, we'll be here for the next 10, 15, 20 years or as long as it takes to make it happen.

"We believe Kevin was murdered. We continue to think that and we're seeking justice to be done at the end of the day."

A Northern Constabulary spokesman said Mr Latimer's meeting with Mr Laing was private and it would not be appropriate to disclose what was said.

Big Wullie · Joined: 25 Apr 2007 Posts: 550 Location: Glasgow

STV News

http://www.stv.tv/content/news/ma...esh_inquiry_into_Wick_manxs_death