Ministry of Justice's 14 January 2020 response to Freedom of Information request originally submitted 7 September 2019, though due to obstruction by whatdotheyknow and obfuscation tack-ticks by MoJ (changing reference numbers etc) the effective submission date deemed by the MoJ was 15 December 2019. Eventual reference number: 191215005, original 190907001 and other previously quoted numbers 191020004 and 191125041. Concerns late production and backdating of documents designed to ‘plug gaps’ and corruption of documents by conflation, amendment or post-dated creation.

1. Mr Craig Scaiff
Via email: craig7scay@protonmail.com
Disclosure Team
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
data.access@justice.gov.uk
14 January 2020
Dear Mr Scaiff
RE: Your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 191215005 - FOI
Thank you for your request, received on the 15th December 2019, in which you have asked for
the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):
“Please see relevant excerpts from the Judgment dated 5 February 2019 of Employment
Tribunal 3400502/2016
167. In this case the commissioning manager was Governor Marfleet. The investigation
should have been completed by 8 February 2016 (28 days from 11 January). It was in fact
completed on 26 April 2016.
168. In his witness statement Governor O’Connor acknowledged that “this process took
a little time” and that he obtained extensions of time. He did not identify where the
extension of time forms were in the bundle of documents but there is a form for
extension which bears the date 1 March 2016 (21 days after the due date for completion)
and which extends the completion date to 10 April 2016. The document’s properties were
provided at the request of Ms Braganza and show that the document was created on 30th
November 2017 and modified 1 minute and 31 seconds after creation. There is a single
letter to the claimant of 10 February 2016 confirming that Governor O’Connor “would
hope to have submitted a full report to the Governor by 6th March” and that he was
“waiting to interview one member of staff and two prisoners” but would not be able to do
so until 25th February due to his own leave. Another extension form is dated on its’ face
11 April 2016 and gives a new completion date of 1 April 2016 (10 days before the
purported date of the document). The properties of that document show it was created
on 27th March 2017 at 09.21.
170. We find as a fact that these documents were created on the dates shown on their
properties, that the purpose of their creation was to give the wholly false impression that
contemporaneous extensions had been given for “acceptable and justifiable reasons” at
the time of the investigation, when they had not and that the creation of the document in
March 2017 (less than 4 months before the final hearing in this case and over 11 and a
half months after the date which it bears on its’ face) was done to mislead the claimant
and the tribunal, no other explanation being forthcoming. Governor O’Connor referred to
their creation as “plugging gaps” and thus in our unanimous view confirming our
finding.

2. 372. No contemporaneous extensions were sought or given in accordance with this
policy and no proper information about delay was given to the claimant as it [should]
have been. The respondent sought, belatedly, to indicate that extensions had been given
by producing documents bearing the dates 1 March 2016 purporting to extend the date
for completion of the investigation to 10 April 2016 and another dated 11 April 2016
“extending” time to 1 April 2016. The properties of those documents were sought by
counsel for the claimant. The first mentioned document was created on 30 November
2017 (and modified the same day). The second was created on 27 March 2017. Governor
O’Connor postulated that these documents had been produced to “plug gaps”. It
appeared to be of no further concern to him that these documents had been produced
many months after their purported dates and were put in evidence before the tribunal
with, we find, the deliberate aim of misleading the tribunal into believing that the
respondent had complied with the requirements of its own policies.
373. By contrast we consider that to be a matter of utmost seriousness.
Q1. What date did Ms Braganza request 'the document’s properties' (for the Claimant) of
the documents bearing the dates 1 March 2016 and 11 April 2016 from the Respondent
and what date were the provided?
Q2. In what form/format where the document’s properties provided?
Q3. What motive did the Respondent have to falsely create a document on 27 March 2017
purporting to have been produced on 11 April 2016 which was to extend the time limit to
1 April 2016? (what am I missing)
Q4. Please disclose the number of allegations made against the MoJ in relation to the
falsification of documents … The time frame in respect of the number of allegations
made against the MoJ in relation to the falsification of documents is from 1 January 2010
to the present. I will also restrict the information in respect of allegations made against
the MoJ (the organisation itself), HMCTS, the Information Commissioner, the Legal
Ombudsmen, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Solicitors Regulation Authority and Her
Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service”
Your request has been handled under the FOIA. I have responded to your request for
information as detailed below:
Q1 to Q3 inclusive
I can neither confirm nor deny if the MoJ holds the information that you have requested about
this case. Under sections 32(3) of the FOIA we are not obliged to confirm or deny whether we
hold information that relates to court records
FOI is a public disclosure regime, not a private regime. This means that any information
disclosed under the FOIA becomes available to the wider public. While the Tribunal’s judgment
has been placed in the public domain1
, Section 32 of the FOIA is in place to preserve the
Tribunal’s control over Tribunal records. The FOIA does provide indirect access to Tribunal
1
The Employment Tribunal Decision has been published on-line at
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-b-plaistow-v-secretary-of-state-for-
justice-3400502-2016

3. records. The greater public interest lies in the preservation of the Tribunal’s own procedures for
considering disclosure and so Tribunal records are exempt from the FOIA.
The fact section 32(3) has been cited should not be taken as an indication that the information
you have requested in this case is, or is not, held by the MoJ. This is an absolute exemption
and does not require a public interest test.
Q4. Please disclose the number of allegations made against the MoJ in relation to the
falsification of documents … The time frame in respect of the number of allegations
made against the MoJ in relation to the falsification of documents is from 1 January 2010
to the present. I will also restrict the information in respect of allegations made against
the MoJ (the organisation itself), HMCTS, the Information Commissioner, the Legal
Ombudsmen, Parliamentary Ombudsman, Solicitors Regulation Authority and Her
Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service
In handling Q4, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has worked on the basis
that you are asking for the number of allegations of document falsification by HMCTS staff not
the number of allegations of falsified documents received by HMCTS staff For example:
• You request includes where it has been alleged that an HMCTS official falsified a document.
• Your request does not include where HMCTS receives an allegation that a citizen falsified a
county court claim form: giving the appearance that it is a valid County Court claim when, in
fact, no such claim had commenced in the County Court.
Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) take the question as referring to any
allegation of document falsification being made against HMPPS, including oral and written
complaints from aggrieved staff, prisoners and service users in the community.
I am unable to confirm if HMPPS holds the information you have requested within the cost limit.
Section 12(2) of the FOIA means public authorities are not obliged to comply with a request for
information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The
appropriate limit for central government it is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of
one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the
information.
To determine if the information requested is held, we would need to contact each prison and
probation division and ask them to look through nine years’ worth of data in order to establish if
this information is held. To do this would exceed the appropriate limit and consequently, we are
not obliged to comply with your request.
Although we cannot answer your request at the moment, we may be able to answer a refined
request within the cost limit. You may wish to consider, for example, reducing the time period
you are asking and determining whether you are requesting this information in relation to staff,
prisoners or service users in the community. You may also consider asking for the number of
allegations of falsification of documents specifically raised in Employment Tribunals by staff.
Please be aware that we cannot guarantee at this stage that a refined request will fall within the
FOIA cost limit, or that other exemptions will not apply.
Where section 12 applies to one part of a request we refuse all the request under the cost limit
as advised by the Information Commissioner’s Office. However, as some of the information is
not held, I can respond to that part of your request. I can therefore confirm that the MoJ does
not hold the number of allegations made in relation to the falsification of documents against the
following organisations:

4. • the Information Commissioner,
• the Legal Ombudsman,
• the Parliamentary Ombudsman2
, and
• the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.
This is because we are not the appropriate authority to contact, as these organisations are
separate to the MoJ for FOIA purposes. I have provided their contact details below.
Information Access Team
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF
E: accessicoinformation@ico.org.uk
https://ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/
The Information Rights and Security Team
Legal Ombudsman
PO Box 6803
Wolverhampton WV1 9WF
E: infosec@legalombudsman.org.uk
https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/
Freedom of Information and Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Citygate
47-51 Mosley Street
Manchester M2 3HQ
E: informationrights@ombudsman.org.uk
https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-
us/corporate-information/freedom-information-and-
data-protection
Solicitors Regulation Authority,
The Cube,
199 Wharfside Street,
Birmingham, B1 1RN
https://www.sra.org.uk/home/contact-us/
Please note: The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) is not covered by the FOIA. The SRA
has its own code. For further information, please see https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/how-we-
work/transparency/
The FOIA does not oblige a public authority to create information to answer a request if the
requested information is not held. The duty is to only provide the recorded information held.
Appeal Rights
If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to request an internal review by
responding in writing to one of the addresses below within two months of the date of this
response.
data.access@justice.gov.uk
Disclosure Team, Ministry of Justice, 10.38, 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ
You do have the right to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate any
aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal
complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning their investigation.

5. Yours sincerely
Knowledge and Information Liaison Officer
South East Regional Support Unit | HM Courts & Tribunals Service