PSNI refuse to confirm or deny if Provos were suspected of crime links

The revelation comes after the PSNI turned down a Freedom of Information request asking for documentation which mentioned “the Provisional IRA, in any guise, as possibly being involved in criminal activities of any sort in G District” for the period July 1, 2010 to July 28, 2011.

In that period, there were claims that “mainstream republicans” were involved in an incident in which up to 20 masked men chased youths from a bonfire site at Gobnascale, and shots were fired.

Initially the PSNI used exemptions that allowed it to neither confirm nor deny they held information about suspected Provo activity.

The appeal resulted in a similar stance, though different exemptions were applied.

After an appeal asking for an internal review, the internal reviewer responded: “The first duty of the FOIA is to confirm or deny and this is followed by the duty to provide information.

“A decision was initially taken to provide an Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND) response by virtue of a number of exemptions as follows:-

Section 40 (5) Personal Information

Section 41 (2) Information provided in Confidence

Section 24 (2) National Security

Section 30 (3) Investigations

Section 31 (3) Law enforcement

“My main focus was to establish if this was the correct and appropriate decision to take. The first duty of the FOIA is to confirm or deny and this is followed by the duty to provide information

“The principle of a public authority having the ability within the law to NCND is required to protect any harm that could arise if it has to state it either holds information relating to a request or that it does not.

“The initial refusal response was provided under Section 17(1) of FOIA and the legislation places an obligation on the PSNI to state the fact of refusal and the exemptions used and an explanation as to whether they applied. If the exemption required a public interest test then this should also be considered and details provided.

“As part of my independent review process I have carefully considered all aspects of the request and the response provided. I have not had any input into the initial decision and have looked at this from a new perspective.

“After examining and reviewing the request I cannot uphold the initial decision and the response provided. I have taken a different view and I am satisfied the following can be considered as a refusal notice under Section 17(4) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and is relevant in this instance:

“The PSNI neither confirms nor denies that it holds any of the information requested. It is not obliged to give a statement of the reasons why neither confirming nor denying is appropriate in this case or to the extent that, the statement would involve the disclosure of information, which would itself be exempt information.

“Therefore, under Section 17(4) no explanation can be given. To the extent that Section 24 (2) National Security & Section 31 (3) Law enforcement applies to the PSNI has determined that in all circumstances of the case the public interest in maintaining the exclusion of the duty to neither confirm nor deny outweighs the public interest in confirming whether or not information is held.

“In conclusion, I have independently reviewed your request and looked at it from a fresh perspective. Due to the limitations placed on a public authority when applying Section 17(4) there is nothing further that can be discussed or made available. The PSNI is always conscious of the need to be open and transparent and provide as much information into the public domain as possible.

“Transparency and openness is a valued and reasonable aspiration for a police service to have. However, the FOIA provides lawful exemptions to the provision of information into the public domain and there will be occasions when it is appropriate to neither confirm nor deny that information is held.

“It is on this basis that I believe the NCND stance is required. I trust the confirmation that I have carried out an independent review will go some way to assure you of the independent and fresh examination of matters.”