Show mobile menu
Show search control
Show search control
Search Site

F12/438

Copies of correspondence

Request Description

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like to request the following information. A prompt response and acknowledgement of receipt would be appreciated.

I would like all correspondence between East Herts Chief Inspector at the time XXX XXXXX and East Herts Council, including councillors, sent and received in the month of September 2011.

Mr XXXXX has since left Herts police but it should still be possible to gain access to his email accounts even if they have since been closed.
The supplied correspondence should also include that sent and received from private email accounts where it concerns official business.

Request Date1 November 2012
Requested By

Media

Released Date12 December 2012            
Response

Further to your request for Information, we have now completed the appropriate Public Interest test's and pursuant redactions.

 I am afraid that it is not possible to provide all the information you requested.

In accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 this document acts as a notification of the Information that can be released and also under Section 17 of the Act a Refusal Notice to that Information that cannot be released.

Information has been redacted under:

Sec 40 Personal Information

Sec 31 Law Enforcement

Sec 41 Confidential Information

Names of junior officers have been redacted, as have email addresses and other contact details (though we have endeavoured to ensure that the identities of relevant senior officers and organisations can still be determined).

Operational details relevant to police actions have been redacted, as have local Tension reports (as they contain local and national intelligence information).

Where members of the public are identifiable (either in communication with the council or the police, or in group reports) we have attempted to anonymise the information.  This has also been the case where comment has been shared in regards to intelligence on licensing issues that has been shared at group meetings.

View the redacted response document pack here.

Many of the documents are email chains, so a single email entry may appear many times throughout the released pack.

In the pack, scanned document 2 was discovered to be a genuine duplicate of document 1 (as opposed to a reccurrence by virtue of an email chain or email forwarding);  the pack therefore jumps from document 1 to document 3

Refused Date   
Refusal Reason