Recently in Attorney General Category

Spy Blog is interested in the legal and procedural immunities offered to whistleblowers etc. Unless these are fair and sufficient, they will not allow whistleblowers to use the normal or extraordinary channels with the system to make their allegations, in the public interest.

However, if carte blanche immunity is given to secret informers and agents provocateurs then the most basic principles of justice are abandoned.

If you are a police or intelligence agency or military insider, would you be satisfied that the very limited legal immunity offered on behalf of this QC-led review is sufficient for you to testify in safety, especially where your current or former colleagues have the power to threaten you with criminal charges from their vast array of legal powers, regardless of the wrongs you may be exposing in the public interest ? ,

In this case, the identity of Peter Francis was public, but what if other of his, still anonymous, former undercover police colleagues, wish to speak up about the same or similar allegations of corruption, incompetence and political smear campaigns ?

To really "get at the truth", especially about secretive police / intelligence / military etc. operations, any QC-led or former / currently serving Judge-led or Privy Councillor - led Inquiry or Review. needs to have limited legal immunities for witnesses, made clear from the very outset,

c.f. the previous blog entry

FOIA Attorney General - full copy of "limited immunity" secured for witness(es) by Michael Ellison QC review of Police Corruption / spying on Stephen Lawrence family etc. allegations

Freedom of Information request - Our ref: FOI/13/14

I am writing in response to the Freedom of information request you submitted to this Office by email dated 14th January, the detail of which is copied below.


1) A full copy of the "limited immunity" undertaking by the Attorney General secured by Mark Ellison QC, who is reviewing police corruption and allegations of police spying on the Steven Lawrence family & campaigners

2) Does this "limited immunity" apply only to the Official Secrets Act 1989 or does it cover other potential charges e.g. Terrorism Act 2000 section 58a Eliciting. publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc. ?

3) Does this "limited immunity" apply only to former undercover police officer Peter Francis, or does it cover other potential witnesses or whistleblowers who may wish to communicate with the Ellison review ?

I have now been able to consider your request, It is probably worthwhile to make it clear that this was not an immunity from prosecution. limited or otherwise. The Attorney General provided an undertaking that within certain parameters, evidence given by Peter Francis would not be used against him in any prosecution. The purpose of an Inquiry, public or otherwise, is to get to the truth of what happened. The Attorney General is often asked by the chair of an inquiry to provide an undertaking so that witnesses may be able to give full and frank evidence to the inquiry without fearing that what they say may subsequently be used against them in a prosecution Although the evidence given by an individual cannot be used against them in a prosecution, it does not follow that a prosecution cannot follow The same evidence may be available elsewhere or from some other source, That is why these are undertakings as to the use of evidence and not an immunity from prosecution

I attach the two letters sent from this office to the Ellison Inquiry. Personal contact details of AGO officials have been redacted, You will note that it is limited to Mr Francis and is in respect solely of information about which he had already spoken to the media.

Home Secretary Theresa May's statement announcing that the existing QC-led review by Mark Ellison would now look into the media reports of undercover police surveillance & smears against the Lawrence family and supporters. Undercover Policing - HC Deb, 24 June 2013, c25

This QC-led Review into police corruption around the Lawrence case was announced by Home Secretary Theresa May back in July 2012 - Stephen Lawrence - HC Deb, 11 July 2012, c30WS

With regard to your request under point 2. I would like to note the following. Section 1 of the FOI Act 2000 confers an entitlement. where you have requested recorded information from a public authority, to be informed in writing by the public authority whether it holds information of the description specified in your request, and in cases where the relevant public authority confirms that it holds information, you are entitled to have that information communicated to you.

As point 2 does not appear to be a request for 'recorded information', but rather seeking legal advice, it does not fall under the scope of the Freedom of Information Act

No, this was not "seeking legal advice", it was asking about the scope of the "limited immunity", just like point 3, which is obvious from the text.

The letters clearly state " in any criminal proceedings." which obviously covers point 2 entirely.

If you are dissatisfied with the handling of your request. you have the right to ask for an internal review Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original letter and should be addressed to Rowena Collins Rice. Director General. at the above address.

Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future communications.

If you are not content with the outcome of the internal review. you have the right to apply directly to the Information Commissioner for a decision The Information Commissioner can be contacted at' Information Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House. Water Lane. Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.

Yours sincerely

Guy Flitton
Freedom of Information Officer



letter 1 - Attorney General Office to Mark Ellison QC 21Nov2013 (.pdf):


Attorney General's Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF

tel: [redacted]
fax: +44 (020) 7271 2433
www.gov.uk/ago


Mark Ellison QC
The Stephen Lawrence Review
QEB Hoiiis Whiteman.
1 - 2 Laurence Pountney Hill
London
EC4R 0EU

21st November 2013

Dear Mr. Ellison

Thank you for your letter of 23rd October concerning the possibility of an undertaking being offered to Peter Francis should he agree to assist your review. Following consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service the Attorney General is prepared to offer Mr Francis an undertaking in the following terms:


This is an undertaking provided to Peter Francis in respect of his provision of evidence to the Stephen Lawrence Review being carried out by Mark Ellison QC. 'Evidence' includes oral evidence, any written statement made by Mr Francis preparatory to giving evidence to the Review or during the course of his testimony to the Review, and any document or information produced to the Review by him.

This undertaking applies only to evidence given about matters which are within the terms of reference of the Review and limited to what has been published In the media as to what Mr Francis has said regarding his tasking and reporting connected to the Lawrence campaign.

No evidence Mr Francis may give before the Review, nor any evidence as defined above. will be used against Mr Francis in any criminal proceedings.

The Attorney General is content for you to make public the existence of the undertaking should you wish.

Yours Sincerely

Kevin McGinty
Deputy Legal Secretary


letter 2 - Attorney General Office to Mark Ellison QC 12Dec2013 (.pdf):

Attorney General's Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF

tel: [redacted]
fax: +44 (020) 7271 2433
www.gov.uk/ago


Mark Ellison QC
The Stephen Lawrence Review
QEB Hoiiis Whiteman.
1 - 2 Laurence Pountney Hill
London
EC4R 0EU


12 December 2013

Dear Mr. Ellison

l understand that the solicitors acting for Mr Francis have sought clarification of the of the Attorney General's undertaking that evidence Mr Francis may provide to the Inquiry will not be used against him in any criminal proceedings. I can confirm that the undertaking will cover any evidence given by him that supplements the issues already published in the media and is within the terms of reference of the Inquiry.

Yours Sincerely

Kevin McGinty
Deputy Legal Secretary

It is significant that Peter Francis' solicitors felt the need to seek further clarification that their client would not face criminal charges if he chose to give evidence to the QC-led Review.

Freedom of Information Act requests
Attorney General's Office
20 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0NF

via email to: correspondence@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
cc: SLMEQC@qebhw.co.uk


Monday 14th January 2014

Dear Sirs,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the following information:

1) A full copy of the "limited immunity" undertaking by the Attorney General secured by Mark Ellison QC, who is reviewing police corruption and allegations of police spying on the Stephen Lawrence family & campaigners

2) Does this "limited immunity" apply only to the Official Secrets Act 1989 or does it cover other potential charges e.g. Terrorism Act 2000 section 58a Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc. ?

3) Does this "limited immunity" apply only to former undercover police officer Peter Francis, or does it cover other potential witnesses or whistleblowers who may wish to communicate with the Ellison review ?

Background:

This article in The Guardian newspaper

"Police demand notes from Channel 4 on Lawrence spying whistleblower
Chief constable wants broadcaster to hand over material about revelations that undercover officers spied on Lawrence family

Rob Evans
The Guardian, Monday 13 January 2014 21.00 GMT"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/13/police-channel-4-stephen-lawrence-undercover-spying

which mentions:

"After Creedon's team said they could not give him immunity from an Official Secrets Act prosecution, Francis said he was not happy to speak to their inquiry.

However, Francis is due to give evidence this week to an associated official inquiry that has been asked by the home secretary, Theresa May, to examine the undercover infiltration of the Stephen Lawrence campaign and other allegations.

He is doing so as Mark Ellison, the barrister heading this inquiry, secured from the attorney-general, Dominic Grieve, limited immunity to enable him to speak to his inquiry."

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste" locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered and why you have decided that the public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Tuesday 11th February 2014


Yours Sincerely,

[name]
[address]
email: [email]

This constitutes a valid Electronic Signature, as per the
Electronic Communications Act 2000 section 7,
Electronic Signatures and related certificates

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/7/section/7

The Detainee Inquiry, headed by Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Gibson, was supposed to have investigated the allegations of complicity in torture and "extraordinary rendition", by the British government, especially its secret intelligence agencies.

However the Detainee Inquiry has been shut down before it even got started formally, even after 18 months delay, supposedly because of the suspiciously lengthy and ineffective Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service investigations into old allegations and the effect of the "smoking gun" documentary evidence discovered in Libya last autumn.

In order to probe exactly how potential witnesses and whistleblowers to the Detainee Inquiry might be protected from vengeful secret bureaucrats, Spy Blog requested, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the full, detailed text of the latest draft(s) (or the final version) of the promised undertakings from the Attorney General and the Cabinet Secretary and the heads of the intelligence services.

Attorney General's Office disclosure

Download the original (.pdf) letter from Spy Blog
Attorney_General_to_Detainee_Inquiry_03Nov2011.pdf

Text of the letter:

AGO
Attorney General's Office
20 Victoria Street
London
SQ1H 0NF

020 7271 2412

Sara Carnegie
Solicitor to the Detainee Inquiry
35 Great Smith Street
London SW1A 3BQ

3rd November 2011

Dear Solicitor, [handwritten]

UNDERTAKING AS TO THE USE OF EVIDENCE

The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, has agreed to provide an undertaking to witnesses to the Inquiry as to the use that may be made by prosecuting authorities of the evidence they give to the Inquiry.

The Attorney General has agreed to provide the following undertaking:

This is an undertaking in respect of any person who provides evidence to the Inquiry
'Evidence' includes oral evidence, any written statement made by that person preparatory to giving evidence to the Inquiry or during the course of his or her testimony to the Inquiry, and any document or information produced to the Inquiry solely by that person.

No evidence a person may give before the Inquiry, nor any evidence as defined above, will be used against that person in any criminal proceedings, save that this undertaking does not apply to:

a. prosecution for any offence arising from the provision, by that witness, of false evidence to this Inquiry, or for any offence arising from the witness'
involvement in having conspired with or procured others to give false evidence; or

b. Any witness who gives evidence in relation to matters occurring after a relevant period of detention or alleged rendition, who shall only be protected by this undertaking to the extent that those matters are themselves relevant to treatment during the period of detention or alleged rendition.

It Is further undertaken that in any criminal proceedings against any person who provides evidence to the Inquiry in relation to a matter within its terms of reference, no reliance will be placed on evidence which is obtained during an investigation as a result of the provision by that person of such evidence to the Inquiry.

This undertaking does not preclude the use of information and/or evidence identified independently of the evidence provided by that person to the Inquiry."

The Attorney General is content that you publish this undertaking in any form you consider appropriate.

[handwritten]

Yours sincerely

[signature]

Kevin McGinty
kevin.mcginty@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk

The Detainee Inquiry is not a Tribunal or Court of Law (despite being chaired by a retired senior Judge) and it was not set up as an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 and so it has no legal power to compel any witnesses to give evidence,

How can it can enforce any prosecutions for giving, or conspiring to give it any "false evidence", which the Attorney General's undertaking explicitly does not give immunity for ?.

Despite receiving this letter last November, the Detainee Inquiry has not published it on their website: http://www.detaineeinquiry.org.uk

Cabinet Office disclosure

The Cabinet Office has disclosed this letter from the (now retired) Cabinet Secretary, head of the civil service the recently enobled Lord Gus O'Donnell:

The Cabinet Office have provided a bit of background information:

To provide some context, this letter was sent by the Cabinet Secretary in contemplation of the formal launch of the Detainee Inquiry. Since that inquiry (chaired by Sir Peter Gibson) is now in the process of being wound up, and will not hear oral evidence, the undertakings in this letter will not now have any practical effect. Similar undertakings may, however, be provided for any future inquiry which may take place, following the conclusion of ongoing
police investigations (see the Lord Chancellor's statement to Parliament on 18 January 2012 which you referenced in your request).

The Cabinet Secretary's letter says (para 2, first bullet), "the Attorney General has provided an undertaking...". That statement was not strictly accurate. The Inquiry would have requested the Attorney General's undertaking only at the time of its formal launch.

It is sad to see the use of the Section 23: Information Supplied by, or Related to, Bodies Dealing with Security Matters exemption.

There cannot be any national security risk in disclosing memos which probably just quote the Cabinet Secretary's letter and agree to abide by the "overarching principles" which it sets out - these are not the "detailed guidance for staff called as witnesses".

As expected by Spy Blog, the Cabinet Office letter and "overarching principles" seem suitable for protecting witnesses who are current or former intelligence agency staff members who espouse the official line e.g. by treating evidence given within the Terms of Reference of the Detainee Inquiry, as having been given "lawful authority" for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989 section 7 Authorised disclosures

However the letter does not really provide the necessary guarantees for any whistleblowers who might contradict their current or former bosses.

Neither is it clear what whistleblower guarantees the vast array of private military contractors, defence industry suppliers and sub-contractors etc. who are not civil servants, but who will fear that their security clearances and government contracts could be at risk if they make allegations, or provide evidence which contradicts the official intelligence agency briefing positions, which those agencies might have provided to the Detainee Inquiry or which they might do so to a future inquiry.

As regards undertakings by the heads of the intelligence agencies, I neither confirm nor deny whether the relevant information is held by the Cabinet Office, with reference to the provision at section 23(5) of the Act. Section 23 is absolute and does not require that the balance of public interest is considered.

Download the disclosed (.pdf) document from Spy Blog:
Sir_Gus_O_Donnell_letter_21Nov2011.pdf

The text of Sir Gus O'Donnell's letter:

Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS

Telephone 020 7276 0101
E-mail gus.odonnell@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
Web www.cabinet-office.gov.uk

Sir Gus O'Donnell GCB
Cabinet Secretary and
Head of the Civil Service

Dame Helen Ghosh (PUS HO)
Sir Simon Fraser (PUS FCO)
DG Security Service
'C' SIS
D/GCHQ
Ursula Brennan (MoD)
via email

21 November 2011

Dear all,

DETAINEE INQUIRY: UNDERTAKING TO GOVERNMENT WITNESSES

As the Prime Minister made clear in his public letter of 6 July 2010 to Sir Peter Gibson (copy attached), staff in departments and agencies are expected to co-operate fully with the Detainee Inquiry, including any requests to give written and oral evidence to it. A formal launch date for the Inquiry has yet to be set, pending the outcome of the related police investigations, but as you know the Government is keen for it to be able to start work as soon as it is possible to do so.

2. I attach great importance to Crown servants engaging with the Inquiry, if asked, in a full and frank way. As Heads of the departments and agencies most likely to receive formal requests from the Inquiry for staff to give evidence, I would ask you to impress on any of your staff called to give evidence the importance of their doing so and potential value of their contribution. It would also be helpful if you could set out the following overarching principles:

• the Attorney General has provided an undertaking that no evidence a person may give before the Inquiry will be used against that person in any criminal proceedings, although this will not apply to prosecution for any offence arising from the provision by a witness of false evidence to the Inquiry or for any offence arising from a witness' involvement in having conspired with or procured others to give false evidence;

• evidence which a person gives to the Inquiry could involve disclosure of information or documents protected under the Official Secrets Acts (OSA). Provided that disclosures concern information relevant to the Inquiry's Terms of Reference and, as regards oral evidence, are made in accordance with advice on whether information can be dealt with in public or private, such disclosures will be regarded as having "lawful authority" for the purposes of the OSA;

• nothing which an employee provides to the Inquiry by way of evidence, whether orally or in writing, will result or be used in subsequent disciplinary proceedings against that employee except where the conduct to which the evidence relates amounts to gross misconduct, or where it is assessed by the employee's home department or agency that he/she has deliberately misled the Inquiry;

• as regards civil proceedings, in line with normal practice the government will provide legal advice and representation where a serving or former official faces civil legal action as a result of actions carried out in the course of their government employment, provided it is satisfied that they were not acting outside the scope of their employment.

3. It will, of course, be important to ensure that these principles are applied consistently for all staff invited to give evidence to the Inquiry. Cabinet Office officials will be working with yours to develop detailed guidance for staff called as witnesses, incorporating these principles.

I am copying this letter to PUS/MoJ, the Treasury Solicitor, Sir Peter Ricketts, Oliver Robbins and Dominic Wilson.


PUS/MoJ = Sir Suma Chakrabarti, KCB, Permanent Under Secretary at the Ministry of Justice

Oliver Robbins is Deputy National Security Adviser, Intelligence Security and Resilience under Sir Peter Ricketts, sitting on the National Security Council.

Dominic Wilson is the Director, Strategy and Resources, at the Ministry of Defence.


What exactly constitutes "gross misconduct" by a "serving or former official" of the intelligence agencies ?

Even actual personal participation in torture or murder is "not acting outside the scope of their employment" provided that it happens outside of the British Isles and has been signed off by a Ministerial Authorisation under the Intelligence Services Act 1994 section 7 Authorisation of acts outside the British Islands..


The Attorney General's Office has made a substantive reply to this FOIA request, just within the statutory 20 working days limit:

Attorney General's Office

20 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0NF

General enquiries: 020 7271 2492
Direct line: 020 7271 2492
Fax: 020 7271 2429
Your Ref:
Our Ref: FOI/93/11
Date: 20 September 2011

[name & address]
[email]

{civil servant name]@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk

Dear [name]

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST


Thank you for your email of 20 August, in which you made a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) in relation to the Detainee Inquiry. Specifically you asked for:


1. A full detailed copy of this promised Undertaking by the the Attorney General;
2. When this Undertaking was communicated to the Detainee Inquiry;
3. If this Undertaking is still to be published, the planned publication date, bearing in mind that it is now over a year since the prime Minister's letter.

In his written statement to the House of 6 July 2010, in announcing the setting up of an Inquiry to examine the treatment of detainees, the Prime Minister said that the Attorney General had agreed to provide an undertaking to witnesses who gave evidence to the Inquiry. Although agreed in principle, the exact wording of the undertaking to be given has not yet been finally agreed. At the date of this reply, there is no final version of the undertaking and no final version has thus been communicated to the Inquiry. When finalised, the undertaking will be published by the Inquiry at a time chosen by the Inquiry. I should explain, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, that the delay in finalising the precise wording of the undertaking is not delaying the Inquiry in its work.

Accordingly I have established that the information you requested is not held by this Department.

Yours sincerely,

[name of civil servant]
Freedom of Information Officer


I should explain, in order to avoid any misunderstanding, that the delay in finalising the precise wording of the undertaking is not delaying the Inquiry in its work

Until the detailed Undertaking is published, there is no chance that any current or former intelligence service insider, who has any whistleblowing evidence which might contradict what the official briefing documents given to the Detainee Inquiry so far, could possibly risk contacting the Detainee Inquiry, for fear of the several laws which could be abused to threaten them with.

Therefore the work of the Detainee Inquiry is being hindered whilst the precise wording of the Undertaking is finalised, over a year after it was promised.

Nothing yet from the Cabinet Office - see our
FOIA request to Cabinet Secretary regarding promised Undertaking about the Detainee Inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture

See also the reply to Spy Blog from the Detainee Inquiry itself:

Reply from the Detainee Inquiry, regarding anonymity protection for whistleblowers, surveillance targeting against the Inquiry itself etc.

Following from our

Spy Blog letter to the Detainee Inquiry re: lack of whistleblower anonymity protection and immunity from prosecution


Freedom of Information Act requests
Attorney General's Office
20 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0NF

via email to: foi@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk

Saturday 20th August 2011

Dear Sirs,


On 6th July 2010 a letter from Prime Minister David Cameron set out the Terms of Reference of the Detainee Inquiry into the alleged complicity in torture by the United Kingdom intelligence agencies and the Government, chaired by Rt. Hon. Sir Peter Gibson, the distinguished former High Court Judge and former Intelligence Services Commissioner under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

A copy of this letter is available on the Detainee Inquiry website:

http://www.detaineeinquiry.org.uk/2010/07/letter-to-sir-peter-gibson/

http://detaineeinquiry.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/06.07.10-Letter-from-PM-to-Sir-Peter-Gibson4.pdf

(copy attached)

"The Attorney General has agreed to provide an undertaking that evidence given by witnesses may not be used against them in criminal proceedings, whether their evidence is given in public, private or both (other than in proceedings where he or she is charged with giving false evidence or conspiring to do so in the course of this Inquiry)"

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please disclose the following information:

1) A full detailed copy of this Undertaking by the Attorney General

2) When this Undertaking was communicated to the Detainee Inquiry

3) If this Undertaking is still to be published, the planned publication date, bearing in mind that it is now over a year since the Prime Minister's letter

Please provide the requested information, ideally by publishing it on your public world wide website, or alternatively by email.

Ideally this should *not* be in the form of a "copy and paste" locked Adobe .pdf file, or similar, attachment.

In the unlikely event that this information is not already available in a standard electronic format, then please explain the reasons why, when you provide the information in another format.

If you are proposing to make a charge for providing the information requested, please provide full details in advance, together with an explanation of any proposed charge.

If you decide to withhold any of the information requested, you should clearly explain why you have done so in your response, by reference to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 legislation.

If your decision to withhold is based upon an evaluation of the Public Interest, then you should clearly explain which public interests you have considered and why you have decided that the public interest in maintaining the exception(s) outweighs the public interest in releasing the information.

I look forward to receiving the information requested as soon as possible and in any event, within the statutory 20 working days from receipt of this email i.e. no later than Tuesday 20th September 2011 (taking into account the August Bank Holiday).


Yours Sincerely,


About this blog

This United Kingdom based blog has been spawned from Spy Blog, and is meant to provide a place to track our Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests to United Kingdom Government and other Public Authorities.

If you have suggestions for other FOIA requests,  bearing in mind the large list of exemptions, then email them to us, or use the comments facility on this blog, and we will see  what we can do, without you yourself having to come under the direct scrutiny of  "Sir Humphrey Appleby" or his minions.

Email Contact

Please feel free to email us your views about this website or news about the issues it tries to comment on:

email: blog @spy[dot]org[dot]uk

Here is our PGP public encryption key or download it via a PGP Keyserver.

WhatDoTheyKnow.com

WhatDoTheyKnow.com - FOIA request submission and publication website from MySociety.org

Campaign Button Links

Watching Them, Watching Us - UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign
UK Public CCTV Surveillance Regulation Campaign

NO2ID Campaign - cross party opposition to the NuLabour Compulsory Biometric ID Card
NO2ID Campaign - cross party opposition to the NuLabour Compulsory Biometric ID Card and National Identity Register centralised database.

Gary McKinnon is facing extradition to the USA under the controversial Extradition Act 2003, without any prima facie evidence or charges brought against him in a UK court. Try him here in the UK, under UK law.
Gary McKinnon is facing extradition to the USA under the controversial Extradition Act 2003, without any prima facie evidence or charges brought against him in a UK court. Try him here in the UK, under UK law.

FreeFarid_150.jpg
FreeFarid.com - Kafkaesque extradition of Farid Hilali under the European Arrest Warrant to Spain

Peaceful resistance to the curtailment of our rights to Free Assembly and Free Speech in the SOCPA Designated Area around Parliament Square and beyond
Parliament Protest blog - resistance to the Designated Area restricting peaceful demonstrations or lobbying in the vicinity of Parliament.

Petition to the European Commission and European Parliament against their vague Data Retention plans
Data Retention is No Solution - Petition to the European Commission and European Parliament against their vague Data Retention plans.

Save Parliament: Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (and other issues)
Save Parliament - Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (and other issues)

Open_Rights_Group.png
Open Rights Group

The Big Opt Out Campaign - opt out of having your NHS Care Record medical records and personal details stored insecurely on a massive national centralised database.

Tor - the onion routing network
Tor - the onion routing network - "Tor aims to defend against traffic analysis, a form of network surveillance that threatens personal anonymity and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security. Communications are bounced around a distributed network of servers called onion routers, protecting you from websites that build profiles of your interests, local eavesdroppers that read your data or learn what sites you visit, and even the onion routers themselves."

Tor - the onion routing network
Anonymous Blogging with Wordpress and Tor - useful Guide published by Global Voices Advocacy with step by step software configuration screenshots (updated March 10th 2009).

irrepressible_banner_03.gif
Amnesty International's irrepressible.info campaign

anoniblog_150.png
BlogSafer - wiki with multilingual guides to anonymous blogging

ngoiab_150.png
NGO in a box - Security Edition privacy and security software tools

homeofficewatch_150.jpg
Home Office Watch blog, "a single repository of all the shambolic errors and mistakes made by the British Home Office compiled from Parliamentary Questions, news reports, and tip-offs by the Liberal Democrat Home Affairs team." - does this apply to the Conservative - Liberal Democrat coalition government as well ?

rsf_logo_150.gif
Reporters Without Borders - Reporters Sans Frontières - campaign for journalists 'and bloggers' freedom in repressive countries and war zones.

committee_to_protect_bloggers_150.gif
Committee to Protect Bloggers - "devoted to the protection of bloggers worldwide with a focus on highlighting the plight of bloggers threatened and imprisoned by their government."

Icelanders_are_NOT_Terrorists_logo_150.jpg
Icelanders are NOT terrorists ! - despite Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling's use of anti-terrorism legislation to seize the assets of Icelandic banks.

nocctv.gif
No CCTV - The Campaign Against CCTV

phnat-logo-black-on-white_150.jpg

I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist !

power2010_132.png

Power 2010 cross party, political reform campaign

Cracking_the_Black_Box_black_150.jpg

Cracking the Black Box - "aims to expose technology that is being used in inappropriate ways. We hope to bring together the insights of experts and whistleblowers to shine a light into the dark recesses of systems that are responsible for causing many of the privacy problems faced by millions of people."

surveillance_72.jpg

Open Rights Group - Petition against the renewal of the Interception Modernisation Programme

Yes, Minister

Yes, Minister Series 1, Episode 1, "Open Government" First airtime BBC: 25 February 1980

"Bernard Woolley: "Well, yes, Sir...I mean, it [open government] is the Minister's policy after all."
Sir Arnold: "My dear boy, it is a contradiction in terms: you can be open or you can have government."

FOIA Links

Campaign for the Freedom of Information

Office of the Information Commissioner,
who is meant to regulate the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Scottish Information Commissioner,
who similarly regulates the Freedom of Information Act (Scotland) 2002

Information Tribunal - deals with appeals against decisions by the Information Commissioners.

Freedom of Information pages - Department for Constitutional Affairs

Friends of the Earth FOIA Request Generator and links to contact details for Central Government Departments and their Publication Schemes

UK Government Information Asset Register - in theory, this should point you to the correct Government documents, but in practice...well see for yourself.

Access all Information is also logging some FOIA requests

foi.mysociety.org - prototype FOIA request submission, tracking and publication website

Blog Links

Spy Blog

UK Freedom of Information Act Blog - started by Steve Wood, now handed over to Katherine Gundersen

Your Right To Know - Heather Brooke

Informaticopia - Rod Ward

Open Secrets - a blog about freedom of information by BBC journalist Martin Rosenbaum

Panopticon blog - by Timothy Pitt-Payne and Anya Proops. Timothy Pitt-Payne is probably the leading legal expert on the UK's Freedom of Information Act law, often appearing on behlaf of the Information Commissioner's Office at the Information Tribunal.

Syndicate this site (XML):

Recent Comments

  • wtw: This has now been published, for what it is worth read more
  • wtwu: Anonymous briefings to the mainstream press that the truncated Gibson read more
  • wtwu: Rendition report still unpublished nine months after completion Although government read more
  • wtwu: The clock is till ticking and the Cabinet Office is read more
  • GF: They obviously just wanted more time to respond, illegally (ironically read more
  • Geoff Hillyard: My police Union told be that I would be read more
  • Geoff Hillyard: My earlier letter talking about the lie that I read more
  • wtwu: Apart from an automatic email dispaly receipt from public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Spy read more
  • wtwu: This Decision Notice is now available as a(.pdf) from the read more
  • wtwu: The ICO has now published this Deciaion Notice as a read more

December 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Categories