Deletion of Former Chief Constables Emails

Summary

The requester sought clarification on the Isle of Man Constabulary's email retention policies and the source of information regarding a former Chief Constable's 'agreement in principle' with the Department of Home Affairs, given claims that relevant emails were deleted. The authority responded by confirming the request was received and began detailing the retention policy, though the provided text cuts off before the full response is visible.

Key Facts

• The request concerns the deletion of the former Chief Constable's emails prior to a previous FOI submission.
• The requester questions how the Constabulary confirmed an 'agreement in principle' if the supporting email records were deleted.
• The Constabulary received this specific FOI request on 12 March 2024.
• The response was issued on 28 March 2024 with the reference number 3726171.
• The authority stated they would detail the policy for retaining correspondence of police officers and chief constables.

Data Disclosed

• 3726171
• 3641269
• 2024-03-12
• 2024-03-28
• 19 February 2024
• 27th February
• IM2 4RG

Original Request

Please find background and questions below: Background: I recently made an FOI request (ref - 3641269) where I was informed that the Firearms Security Handbook ("FSH") was released by the Isle of Man Constabulary rather than by the Department of Home Affairs ("DHA"). This appears to be a breach of statute/process as there is no general or specific statutory right for the IOMC to release codes of practice or guidance (indeed where it is, it is specifically referenced in the statute). I will not go into detail on that here as that is not the subject of the FOI request. It was mentioned by the IOMC respondent in their letter of 19 February 2024 that the FSH was released by the former Chief Constable with "agreement in principle" (emphasis added to wording in inverted commas) from the DHA. It was not established how the respondent had determined that "agreement in principle" was sought. Presumably, it would be formal given that there is no statutory basis upon which to otherwise release such guidance. Presumably, also, the respondent had access to those emails to determine that it was sought in advance? When I asked for this correspondence i received a response from the respondent on 27th February which confirmed this as being an email exchange as the respondent said that the former Chief Constable's emails had been deleted prior to the submission of the FOI. I do question how the respondent was able to respond to my FOI request stating that their was "agreement in principle", presumably confirmed from email records, but then a few days later said these same emails were unavailable as they had been permanently deleted. Questions: 1) What is the policy for retaining former correspondence of police officers and chief constables etc (time frame etc)? Normally records are kept for a significant amount of time and normally archived prior to permanent deletion. 2) When was the correspondence of the former chief constable permanently deleted as suggested by the respondent in the email of the 27th February? 3) What format did the "agreement in principle" referred to in response to FOI request 3641269? Email, letter? It is suggested it is email in the email response from the respondent of 27th February? 4) In relation to the above, where did the respondent to FOI request 3641269 source the records which conferred that "agreement in principle" had been obtained from the DHA if they had already been permanently deleted and unavailable to the IOMC?

Data Tables (1)

Full Response Text

Isle of Man Constabulary Freedom of Information Police Headquarters Dukes Avenue Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4RG

Our ref: 3726171 28 March 2024

Dear ###

We write further to your request, received 12 March 2024, which states:

"Please find background and questions below:

Background:

I recently made an FOI request (ref - 3641269) where I was informed that the Firearms Security Handbook ("FSH") was released by the Isle of Man Constabulary rather than by the Department of Home Affairs ("DHA"). This appears to be a breach of statute/process as there is no general or specific statutory right for the IOMC to release codes of practice or guidance (indeed where it is, it is specifically referenced in the statute). I will not go into detail on that here as that is not the subject of the FOI request.

It was mentioned by the IOMC respondent in their letter of 19 February 2024 that the FSH was released by the former Chief Constable with "agreement in principle" (emphasis added to wording in inverted commas) from the DHA.

It was not established how the respondent had determined that "agreement in principle" was sought. Presumably, it would be formal given that there is no statutory basis upon which to otherwise release such guidance. Presumably, also, the respondent had access to those emails to determine that it was sought in advance?

When I asked for this correspondence i received a response from the respondent on 27th February which confirmed this as being an email exchange as the respondent said that the former Chief Constable's emails had been deleted prior to the submission of the FOI.

I do question how the respondent was able to respond to my FOI request stating that their was "agreement in principle", presumably confirmed from email records, but then a few days later said these same emails were unavailable as they had been permanently deleted.

Questions:

1) What is the policy for retaining former correspondence of police officers and chief constables etc (time frame etc)? Normally records are kept for a significant amount of time and normally archived prior to permanent deletion.

2) When was the correspondence of the former chief constable permanently deleted as suggested by the respondent in the email of the 27th February?

3) What format did the "agreement in principle" referred to in response to FOI request 3641269? Email, letter? It is suggested it is email in the email response from the respondent of 27th February?

4) In relation to the above, where did the respondent to FOI request 3641269 source the records which conferred that "agreement in principle" had been obtained from the DHA if they had already been permanently deleted and unavailable to the IOMC?"

Our response to your request is as follows: I have detailed below the information that is being released to you.

1) What is the policy for retaining former correspondence of police officers and chief constables etc (time frame etc)? Normally records are kept for a significant amount of time and normally archived prior to permanent deletion.

The Isle of Man Constabulary policy relating to the retention of email accounts for police officers is that records should be retained of administrative data outside categories deemed relevant as public records, that meets the criteria listed below:

• Satisfies a legal or compliance purpose where there is a statutory obligation to retain • Has long term value for future reference, decisions or historical purposes • Could be used to provide evidence of a business activity or transaction including the establishment, negotiation and maintenance of business relationships • Authorises, justifies or explains an important decision/course of action including contractual undertakings • Documents the formulation or execution of policy

However, there was a breach of this policy as the email account of the former Chief Constable was deleted on leaving the Constabulary.

This breach of policy has been reviewed and there is now a retention period of 6 years for email accounts of senior police officers of the rank of Chief Inspector and above, as well as email records of any officer that contains specific information that meets the criteria for record retention by the Isle of Man Constabulary.

2) When was the correspondence of the former chief constable permanently deleted as suggested by the respondent in the email of the 27th February?

The email account of the former Chief Constable was deleted in April 2023.

3) What format did the "agreement in principle" referred to in response to FOI request 3641269? Email, letter? It is suggested it is email in the email response from the

respondent of 27th February?

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance the Isle of Man Constabulary does not hold or cannot, after taking reasonable steps to do so, find the information that you have requested in relation to the format of the ‘agreement in principle’, as it is not contained within the documents retained from the former Chief Constable.

4) In relation to the above, where did the respondent to FOI request 3641269 source the records which conferred that "agreement in principle" had been obtained from the DHA if they had already been permanently deleted and unavailable to the IOMC?"

There was email correspondence between the former Chief Constable and the current Chief Constable confirming the situation in relation to the agreement in principle between the Department of Home Affairs and the Isle of Man Constabulary; however no further information is provided with the communication.

Please quote the reference number 3726171 in any future communications.

Your right to request a review

If you are unhappy with this response to your freedom of information request, you may ask us to carry out an internal review of the response, by completing a complaint form and submitting it electronically or by delivery/post.

An electronic version of our complaint form can be found by going to our website at https://services.gov.im/freedom-of-information/Review . If you would like a paper version of our complaint form to be sent to you by post, please contact me and I will be happy to arrange for this. Your review request should explain why you are dissatisfied with this response, and should be made as soon as practicable. We will respond as soon as the review has been concluded.

If you are not satisfied with the result of the review, you then have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner for a decision on; 1. Whether we have responded to your request for information in accordance with Part 2 of the Freedom of Information Act 2015; or 2. Whether we are justified in refusing to give you the information requested.
In response to an application for review, the Information Commissioner may, at any time, attempt to resolve a matter by negotiation, conciliation, mediation or another form of alternative dispute resolution and will have regard to any outcome of this in making any subsequent decision. More detailed information on your right to a review can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at www.inforights.im. Should you have any queries concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Further information about freedom of information requests can be found at www.gov.im/foi.

I will now close your request as of this date.