Speaker of the House.

It would appear the ICO used the Dransfield Vexatious BS Precedent to hide the truth about the Joe Cox Murder exactly one decade ago

-///-/////——-///:::——//

Public authorities, such as the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and police forces, process Freedom of Information (FOI) requests concerning the murder of MP Jo Cox by assessing whether they meet statutory requirements. Authorities frequently refuse requests under Section 14 (Vexatious) or Section 12 (Cost Limit) of the Freedom of Information Act.

When handling FOI requests regarding the murder trial of Jo Cox, authorities rely on specific procedural exemptions and guidelines to determine whether a request is vexatious:

Abuse of Process: Requests submitted to reopen thoroughly investigated or already-concluded criminal trials—such as requests speculating about fake or computer-generated (CGI) evidence in the murder of Jo Cox—are frequently categorised as vexatious or manifestly unfounded.

Disproportionate Burden: If responding requires a disproportionate amount of time, diverts resources, or is designed to harass agency staff, authorities cite Section 14 to decline the request.

Information Not Held: Public bodies often clarify that the FOI act applies only to recorded information. They are not obligated to answer open-ended questions, offer personal opinions, or manufacture new information.You can review past correspondence and learn about what can and cannot be requested regarding the CPS files by exploring the Crown Prosecution Service Freedom of Information Disclosures on the WhatDoTheyKnow platform. To understand your own rights when seeking specific details, consult the Information Commissioner’s Office FOI Guidance on dealing with vexatious requests.

Sincerely,

Alan M Dransfield