Information

Request

1) Which solicitor or firm the legal advice was sourced from and the cost to the OPFCC budget for obtaining this information.

2) Please provide a copy of the communications to said firm and the replies back that support & justify the cost expenditure.

3) Please provide a copy of the The National Police Chiefs Council and the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association communications regarding this support that is referenced.

4) Please confirm the exact date that Nick Adderley would have started exceeding his pension contributions.

5) Contingent on the above, please confirm if Nick Adderley continued in post past this date of exceeding his pension contributions, did pension contributions continue to be made by OPFCC as part of his salary renumeration. If so please confirm the value of money that was paid by OPFCC to the pension scheme that could have been avoided.

 Response

I can confirm that the Office of the Northamptonshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner holds some of the information requested.

 

Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held.

The second duty at Section 1(1)(b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of Freedom of Information Act requires that we provide the applicant with a notice which:

1. a) States that fact
2. b) Specifies the exemption(s) in question and
3. c) State (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies

The OPFCC does hold information, however, we believe that it is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (information covered by legal professional privilege). For the avoidance of doubt, the OPFCC is not prepared to waive privilege.

Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) states: (1) Information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege… could be maintained in legal proceedings is exempt information. (2) The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) in respect of which such a claim could be maintained in legal proceedings.

Legal professional privilege (LPP) is not defined in the Act or in any other legislation. It is a common law concept shaped by the courts over time. It is designed to provide confidentiality between legal advisers and their clients to ensure openness between them and safeguard access to fully informed, realistic and frank legal advice. This in turn ensures that justice is fairly administered. Legal professional privilege belongs to the client, and material cannot be revealed without the consent of the client, not even to a court. A professional legal adviser for the purposes of LPP could be a solicitor, barrister, licensed conveyancer or legal executive holding professional qualifications recognised by the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX). It makes no difference whether the legal adviser is an external lawyer or a professional in-house lawyer.

Legal advice privilege covers confidential communications between the client and a lawyer made for the dominant purpose of seeking or giving legal advice. In the current instance, the information that you have requested constitutes confidential legal advice given by our professional legal advisers. We are, therefore, satisfied that the exemption applies. The exemption is, however, subject to the public interest test.

The OPFCC has considered whether the public interest is maintaining this exemption is outweighed by the public interest in disclosure.

This OPFCC has considered the following reasons in favour of disclosure: The assumption in favour of disclosure and the rationale behind the assumption, i.e. accountability, transparency, furthering public debate etc.

Balanced against this are the following reasons against disclosure: The concept of legal professional privilege and the rationale behind the concept which is to ensure frankness between lawyer and client which goes to serve the wider administration of justice.

On balance the OPFCC considers that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosure’

• Which solicitor or firm the legal advice was sourced from and the cost to the OPFCC budget for obtaining this information. 

The PFCC sought legal advice from East Midlands Legal Services which provides legal advice to Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables across all five forces in the East Midlands region in areas such as employment, court and disciplinary, civil litigation and commercial law. There was no direct cost to obtain the advice beyond the annual contribution the PFCC contributes to provide this regional resource. 

• Please provide a copy of the communications to said firm and the replies back that support & justify the cost expenditure. – 

We believe that it is exempt from disclosure under section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (information covered by legal professional privilege). For the avoidance of doubt, the OPFCC is not prepared to waive privilege.

 3)    Please provide a copy of the National Police Chiefs Council and the Chief Police Officers’ Staff Association communications regarding this support that is referenced.

 Having reviewed all relevant files both paper and electronic, I can find no record of any such communications. This may be due in part to a number of key staff leaving the organisation and therefore emails and records are no longer readily accessible for OPFCC to review.

 However, I have reviewed the speech drafted for Mr Mold to deliver at the Panel meeting on the 11^th of January 2023 which contained the following passage:

 “To ensure this is possible, we have sought advice from our Legal Services which confirms that a break between contracts for the purpose of abatement is legal. In addition, the position of national bodies like the National Police Chief Council (NPCC) and Chief Police Officers Staff Association (CPOSA) has also been supportive.”

 This mention of the NPCC and CPOSA may have been something Mr Adderley gained from a personal perspective and not in relation to the OPFCC decision.

 4)           Please confirm the exact date that Nick Adderley would have started exceeding his pension contributions.

 This is in relation to Mr Adderley’s personal tax affairs and would be ascertained by him as part of any personal tax advice he may have taken.  There is not a date that the OPFCC would be aware of and therefore does not hold the information requested. 

5)           Contingent on the above, please confirm if Nick Adderley continued in post past this date of exceeding his pension contributions, did pension contributions continue to be made by OPFCC as part of his salary renumeration. If so please confirm the value of money that was paid by OPFCC to the pension scheme that could have been avoided.

 Any tax charges resulting from Mr Adderley’s pension contributions are a personal matter for him.  The Force paid employer pension contributions whilst he was in the pension scheme as they would for any officer in the scheme, and ceased contributions as required when he left the scheme.  There were no additional costs borne by the Force and no costs required to be paid by the OPFCC.