– a personal experience of using the “Freedom of Information Act” to research anarchist history
by Christopher Draper
In 1892 four Walsall anarchists were imprisoned for a bomb plot orchestrated by Auguste Coulon, a police agent-provocateur. Although the police and trial judge conspired to conceal Coulon’s role he subsequently boasted of his involvement to reporters. For over a century the Metropolitan Police refused to disclose details of its part in securing conviction until in 2001 there was a breakthrough. Despite claims that all relevant documents had either been lost or destroyed a serving police officer seeking early retirement and academic respectability was granted access to hitherto hidden Special Branch files to complete his PhD: ”Three “Special Account” books, each measuring 160mm by 200mm, and printed into five columns per page. They detail, among other items, what appears to be the cash amounts paid out to individual informants. In all, approximately six thousand individual entries span a total of the twenty four years from 1888 to 1912”.
These files revealed Coulon was paid almost £1,000 by the Metropolitan Police (and incidentally also revealed the previously unsuspected involvement of a second police agent in a separate high-profile “anarchist-terrorist conspiracy). This initiative prompted me to wonder whether the Walsall anarchists’ local police force might similarly be sitting on undisclosed evidence so in September 2017 I made a formal FOI request to West Midlands Police (WMP) for copies of documents relating to this 1892 case. It has taken almost 1½ years for that simple enquiry to be concluded and in the hope that it might amuse, enlighten and encourage fellow researchers I’ve recorded details of my quest.
My initial FOI was emailed to WMP on 4.9.2017. WMP replied on 12.9.2017 suggesting I instead contact their ”Heritage Project” adding, “Can I please ask you to confirm that you are happy for this request to be withdrawn under the FOI Act?” I responded by refusing to withdraw and insisting on a formal FOI response. The law allows 20 working days for an FOI response so on 7.10.2017 I reminded WMP, ”After 25 working days you are yet to comply. It is regrettable that a Police Authority should demonstrate such little regard for the law…”
I received a substantive response on 9.10.2017 declaring my FOI “Vexatious” which technically means it would take them too much effort and consequently cost more than the nominal £450 the Act allows to supply the information I requested (WMP later suggested my request was also vexatious in the non-technical sense as I was impertinent). “The information that we hold in respect of your request is a very old, large, fragile and very rare document. It is not suitable for scanning and therefore we would have to investigate the provision of specialised services in order to supply an electronic copy to you. This would be costly and burdensome.”
WMP had whetted my appetite – they’d revealed they held a relevant old and rare document. At this point FOI inquirers can either accept the brush-off or if they choose to persevere must request an authority reviews its own FOI decision. On 18.10.2017 I did the latter, pointing out to WMP that historic documents are nowadays digitally photographed in situ with minimal handling or cost. On 13.11.2017 WMP’s internal review conceded, “You suggested that the documents could simply be photographed… this is a sensible suggestion”! Then WMP went on to explain that as their resulting photographs weren’t clear enough “to be certain that there was not any harmful information in the documents” it would require further time, effort and cost to satisfactorily censor the information. WMP’s response was peppered throughout with technical references to various clauses and sub clauses of FOI legislation (sections 8/1c, 12, 14, 14/1, 23, 31 etc), not forgetting “Section 38 (health and safety)”! What all this amounted to was as far as WMPI was concerned I was getting nothing.
I read hundreds of pages of FOI legislation and precedents to escalate to the next stage, an appeal to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Of course the ICO comes at it cold so it is up the applicant to gather all relevant communications and present a coherent case to challenge the combined expertise of a public authority – a demanding and time consuming business, but in for a penny…
My 25.11.2017 appeal to ICO rested on two main grounds, firstly it was not credible that WMP did not have expert photographers at hand to efficiently produce excellent copies of the historic document and so it could not fairly cite “vexation” as grounds for withholding information. Secondly I argued that full disclosure was in the Public Interest. Of course I had to play the game of citing specific clauses and precedents and supplying supporting documents. Five months later I received the ICO’s 17.4.2018 Decision Notice, “The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and so section 14(1) was relied on incorrectly. WMP is now required to issue a fresh response to the request… WMP must take these steps within 35 calendar days… failure to comply may be dealt with as a contempt of court”. Now the ball was firmly in WMP’s court, would it hand over the contents of the 1892 document or appeal over the head of ICO to the mysterious “First-tier Tribunal”?
Thirty-four days later (21.05.2018) WMP responded, “We have considered the above judgement and although we do not agree with the conclusions drawn by the Information Commissioner, we have made the decision not to take this case to the Information Tribunal.” WMP explained that its substantive response would be further delayed whilst it applied a “Public Interest Test” on what precisely it would disclose. Unfortunately this further delay is permitted by the FOI Act.
On 16.6.2018 WMP emailed copies of all 57 handwritten pages of the large (300mm X 250mm) bound volume with the title “WALSALL ANARCHIST TRIAL 1892” embossed on the cover, a document containing almost 20,000 words of “evidence”. After ten months this was a huge advance but the contents had been censored by almost 300 redactions so on 25.6.2018 I requested another WMP internal review.
On 20.7.2018 that review conceded much of my case, restored almost 90% of the redactions (posting me paper photocopies) yet maintained that the name of the agent-provocateur should continue to be withheld along with the addresses of those involved in the prosecution. This despite the fact that Coulon’s name had been in the public realm for over a century and one of the redacted addresses, “238 Stafford Street”, the home of Joe Deakin, was marked by a “Walsall Anarchist Blue Plaque” erected in 1989 by the local authority.
On 11.8.2018 I contacted ICO to contest WMP’s reliance on sections 30/2 (informants' names) and 40/2 (witness addresses) in retaining 39 redactions. Five months later, on 17.1.2019 ICO ruled “that WMP was entitled to rely on section 30/2b to withhold information but that section 40/2 was not engaged”. Consequently WMP were directed to disclose all redacted addresses but permitted to withhold any mention of Coulon and they had just 28 calendar days to comply, appeal to the “Tribunal” or risk Contempt of Court. Twenty-five days later I received full disclosure of thirty addresses and I filled in the few redactions of Coulon’s name myself!
I’m sifting through this new evidence and will write more of the Walsall Anarchists in due course but I’m pleased with the FOI outcome. In a future post I’ll reveal the shocking fate of the Special Branch files and the officer who uncovered them and draw lessons on the workings of the FOI Act. In the meantime I’m just about to launch a new FOI seeking information about an intriguing anarchist artefact exhibited in 1889 in the Metropolitan Police’s “Black Museum”…
