Driver wins right to see police note

#1
A police officer has been ordered under the freedom of information act to hand over his notebook to a motorist who complained about his behaviour.

The driver who of a motoring offence, had asked for a copy of the notebook entry relating to the case and a copy of the report of his allegation about the officer.

Suffolk Police had refused both requests. It is the first time the Act has been used to disclosethe contents of a police officers notebook.
 
#4
mgmidget said:
It has set a landmark in others obtaining information held about them in police documents. The FOI Act is a good thing for us all
 
#5
SOP's here in the states. That is why we don't keep note books. You right your notes out, write your offical report, then destroy your notes afterword. If you do that all the time, no problem.
 
#6
So its acceptable for the US law agencies to destroy records?

Sorry mate but that sucks.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#8
Can't see what the problem is. There should have been a copy of his note book entry in the disclosure file.
 
#9
So can I get a copy of the CCTV tape as I scratched my nuts outside Dixons, scratched them again outside WH Smiths and it did look as if I was picking my nose outside BHS?

Of course if it comes to court then I will be able to contest the charge of excessive nut scratching and attempted nose picking and the tapes will be made available to my solicitor.

I hope nobody is writing about me now, I might want copies of that as well.
 
#10
mistersoft said:
So can I get a copy of the CCTV tape as I scratched my nuts outside Dixons, scratched them again outside WH Smiths and it did look as if I was picking my nose outside BHS?

Of course if it comes to court then I will be able to contest the charge of excessive nut scratching and attempted nose picking and the tapes will be made available to my solicitor.

I hope nobody is writing about me now, I might want copies of that as well.
You will only get access if it was intrusive surveillence!
 
#11
india-juliet said:
mistersoft said:
So can I get a copy of the CCTV tape as I scratched my nuts outside Dixons, scratched them again outside WH Smiths and it did look as if I was picking my nose outside BHS?

Of course if it comes to court then I will be able to contest the charge of excessive nut scratching and attempted nose picking and the tapes will be made available to my solicitor.

I hope nobody is writing about me now, I might want copies of that as well.
You will only get access if it was intrusive surveillence!
Fcuking camera was further up my nose than my finger. Is that intrusive enough?
 
#12
mistersoft said:
india-juliet said:
mistersoft said:
So can I get a copy of the CCTV tape as I scratched my nuts outside Dixons, scratched them again outside WH Smiths and it did look as if I was picking my nose outside BHS?

Of course if it comes to court then I will be able to contest the charge of excessive nut scratching and attempted nose picking and the tapes will be made available to my solicitor.

I hope nobody is writing about me now, I might want copies of that as well.
You will only get access if it was intrusive surveillence!
Fcuking camera was further up my nose than my finger. Is that intrusive enough?
lol, sorry I didnt take your post as being real, this actually happned to you?, was it a council owned cctv camera?
 
#13
No, not real but it's come pretty close sometimes. Did happen at Meadowhall near Sheffield and apart from that feeling somebody was watching you which they were, I was actually being followed by security and into the bog as well but they weren't my type (they were men). Thought I was part of a shop lifting gang (on my own) as I looked unemployed (I was) and all the unemployed are shoplifters (they aren't) or part of a shoplifting gang (I wasn't).

Got an apology and a voucher for a free cup of coffee which was thrown at the head of security which he later realised was me declining their very ungenerous offer of a cup of coffee.
 
#14
mistersoft said:
No, not real but it's come pretty close sometimes. Did happen at Meadowhall near Sheffield and apart from that feeling somebody was watching you which they were, I was actually being followed by security and into the bog as well but they weren't my type (they were men). Thought I was part of a shop lifting gang (on my own) as I looked unemployed (I was) and all the unemployed are shoplifters (they aren't) or part of a shoplifting gang (I wasn't).

Got an apology and a voucher for a free cup of coffee which was thrown at the head of security which he later realised was me declining their very ungenerous offer of a cup of coffee.
Until 1st March 2000 there was no statutory basis for a systematic control of CCTV surveillance in public spaces. However, with the Data Protection Act 1998 now fully in operation, there are legally binding procedures to regulate public space surveillance.

Remember CCTV is affected by the Human Rights Act!
 
#16
mistersoft said:
No, not real but it's come pretty close sometimes. Did happen at Meadowhall near Sheffield and apart from that feeling somebody was watching you which they were, I was actually being followed by security and into the bog as well but they weren't my type (they were men). Thought I was part of a shop lifting gang (on my own) as I looked unemployed (I was) and all the unemployed are shoplifters (they aren't) or part of a shoplifting gang (I wasn't).

Got an apology and a voucher for a free cup of coffee which was thrown at the head of security which he later realised was me declining their very ungenerous offer of a cup of coffee.
Get a group together and go into the area. Each stand and stare at a different camera at different parts of the location for ten mins, then move to another camera and do the same. It will set the operators off and could be good fun. And all have outrageous falls beards.
 
#17
india-juliet said:
mgmidget said:
It has set a landmark in others obtaining information held about them in police documents. The FOI Act is a good thing for us all
Beg to differ! There are so many exemptions to the FOI Act 2000. Some of which are absolute and some which need a 'public interest' test applied to them that it's still very hard to get hold of certain information and impossible to get hold of some.

As for police notebooks, as I understood it a police officer only has to make his notes intelligible to himself. i.e he could theoretically write it in Latin so long as he could use his notes to recount a specific case if and when required.

Any coppers out there wish to clarify?
 
#18
AbsoluteJEM said:
india-juliet said:
mgmidget said:
It has set a landmark in others obtaining information held about them in police documents. The FOI Act is a good thing for us all
Beg to differ! There are so many exemptions to the FOI Act 2000. Some of which are absolute and some which need a 'public interest' test applied to them that it's still very hard to get hold of certain information and impossible to get hold of some.

As for police notebooks, as I understood it a police officer only has to make his notes intelligible to himself. i.e he could theoretically write it in Latin so long as he could use his notes to recount a specific case if and when required.

Any coppers out there wish to clarify?
I side with AbJEM on the first point. There is no obligation to diclose information from a Police Notebook, see R v Ward [1993] 2 All ER 577 and the FOI interpretation would only operate subject to several public interest disclosure crtiteria. I hardly think that this is a landmark.

I disagree on the second point in respect of the theoretical latin slant. I would contend that since a Police Notebook is an official document, that it is not entriely unreasonable to suggest that any other person who duties could reasonably be said to include reading the same, that the information contained therein is legible, understandable and capable of succint interpretation. Therefore the notes written within it must be capable of a reasonable interpretation.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top