Alan Dransfield's Blog

Email sent – 20 March 2015 06:33

Upper Tribunal

Dear Sirs

As you are aware, the above case was put in abeyance approx 18 months ago
pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal Case C3/2013/1855
Dransfield v ICO.

The Upper Tribunal adjourned its last hearing on this case
owing to the UT Judges concerns for the “evidence credibility” by the Chief
Witness from the Devon County Council i..e.,e Miss Amber Steer Frost the DCC FOIA
Manager..

In the event the Court of Appeal release their judgement in the not too
distant future, the subject title case will need to continue to a full oral hearing, whether or not the CoA rules in my favour or the
ICO’s favour.

To this end, I am currently reviewing the EA/2010/0152 which is currently
under the Upper Tribunal remit and preparing my revised Skeleton Argument.

I do not wish to sit idle and await the Court of Appeal, and neither do I
think the Upper Tribunal should be idle either.

Please see the First Tier Tribunal decision notice and as you are well aware
the ICO and the DCC have now changed their plea from
DO NOT HOLD to section 14(1) vexatious.

I do not consider it appropriate for the respondents to change their plea mid-stream. I am deeply concerned at Judge C Hughes decision notice in the
attached FTT decision notice in which he claims the Devon County
did not hold the sought after information and then claimed the sought after
data was too voluminous and too costly.

The most up to date plea from the DCC is section 14(10 Vexatious on this
case which started in May 2009

Before the Upper Tribunal considers this case at a rescheduled oral
hearing, I strongly recommend we have a teleconference hearing to discuss
several matters of serious contention on this case.

You will also recall my original FOIA request was for the 6
PFI schools in Exeter which was downgraded to one
school (ISCA) upon the request of the ICO owing to the voluminous amount of documents.

We now know that the sought after data on the 6 PFI schools
was not voluminous and available in PDF format; hence, I consider my
original FOIA request should be reinstated for ALL 6
PFI schools.

It is abundantly clear to me the FTT Judge Hughes erred in law on a number of occasions during his decision.

Quite frankly, in the event of the Court of Appeal Rule in my favour, it
behoves the Upper Tribunal to strike out the subject case and issue costs
against the ICO & DCC.

As you are aware, the UT placed a cost warning against the DCC for
“Evidence Credibility” at the last hearing.

I would envisage the UT should be able to make a decision one way or the
other two weeks after the Court of Appeal Judgement.

Being mindful of the costs to the public purse on the current Court of
Appeal case, I would ask the UT for an immediate strike out of this case in the
event the Court of Appeal rule in my favour.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dansfield

Email sent – 20 March 2015 07:19

Upper Tribunal

Dear Sirs

As you are aware, the UT put this case in abeyance pending the Court of
Appeal Judgement C3/2013/1855 Dransfield v ICO.

In the event the Court of Appeal rule in my favour, I invite the Upper Tribunal to
strike out the attached decision and to order costs against the ICO.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – 20 March 2015 08:12

JUSTICE SELECT COMMITTEE

Dear Sirs

Further to my earlier email ref the wrongdoing of the FTT and abuse of
power. please see the attached Upper Tribunal decision notice from Judge Edward Jacobs(JJ)
dated Nov 2013 and in particular para 19 where JJ refers to ” DRACONIAN STEPS
OF STRIKING OUT THE PROCEEDINGS.”

The arbitrary strike out of First Tier Tribunal appeals application by Judge NJ Warren is
an abuse of power.

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Email sent – 20 March 2015 16:12

Justice Select Committee

Dear Sirs

Please see the attached First Tier Tribunal (FTT) decision ref EA/2014/0149
dated 11/12/14, which is tangible evidence of a pattern of systemic failures at
the ICO and HM Courts.

This FTT decision based on section 14/1 could not be reached by any person
applying a right and proper mind.

Therefore, this attached decision must have been reached by a perverse
mindset and yet further tangible evidence the FTT Court are complicit with the
ICO to pervert the course of justice and flagrant breach of section 77 of the
FOIA 2000.

For your information action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield

Email sent – 11 March 2015 06:16

Justice Select Committee

Dear Sirs

Over the past 12 months I have sent tangible evidence to Ed Beale ref the
subject title. Please see the latest ICO vexatious decision, which I consider to
be further tangible evidence of a wider pattern of systemic failures by the ICO
to pervert the course of justice by the wrongful application of section
14(1).

In particular, please see para 12-13 which makes direct ref to my case
GIA/3037/2011 which is still before the Court of Appeal.

Please also see the ICO/CPS latest vexatious decision, which also uses my
case above as a court precedence in para 15.

In my view there is sufficient tangible evidence that the ICO is conspiring with other 3rd parties to pervert the course of Justice via section
77 of the FOIA 2000 and in particular the willful and flagrant use of section
14(1) vexatious. In other words the ICO is gaffing Joe Public and obstructing
the FOIA 2000.

No person applying a right and proper mind could have reached a vexatious
exemption decision on the two attached cases.

Enough is enough of this vexatious exemption nonsense and I call upon the
Justice Select Committee to call for a Public Inquiry into the wrongful and
illegal use of Vexatious exemptions under section 14(1).

For your information, action and files.

With thanks

Yours sincerely

Alan M Dransfield.

Email sent – 10 March 2015 06:43

Dear Mr Bradshaw

I am deeply concerned at the recent headline news on the BBC that 9 out 10
Devon Schools have asbestos and the £1/4 million damages payout to a former
pupil.

Please see my FOIA request from Sep 2012 which was refused under section
14(1) vexatious.

It beggars belief the Devon County Council has paid out 1/4 million pounds in compensation
for asbestos-related illness, which in essence could open the floodgates to
former students in Devon schools. No doubt the DCC has been hugely cost-impacted on these asbestos court cases, as well as the Dransfield FOIA cases.

Enough is enough Mr Bradshaw; you are failing your fiduciary duty of care
as MP for Exeter by your inactions and failures.

The recent BBC publication of asbestos dangers in Devon schools does, in
my view, prove my FOIA back in Sept 2012 was far from vexatious.

For your information, action and files

With thanks

Yours etc

Alan M Dransfield.

http://informationrightsandwrongs.com/2015/02/04/is-an-foi-request-from-an-investigative-journalist-ever-vexatious/#comments

Pilgrim Fathers would turn in their graves if they knew that vexatious exemptions were being applied by public authorities and HM Courts as a first option tool to gag Joe Public.

I attend a Court of Appeal test case hearing in London next week in an
attempt to save the FOIA 2000. Should I lose my Court of Appeal case, Freedom of
Information is gone for ever.

What next from this Coalition Government? Freedom of speech?

Alan Dransfield
20/1/15