FOI Robin Garbutt (953-2023/24)

Request

I wrote a long read piece for the Express this year about Robin Garbutt, who was found guilty of murdering his wife Diana in Melsonby in 2010.

The investigation into the murder was described by the Judge at Garbutt’s trial as having ‘a regrettable lack of professionalism’. Specifically he refereed to the loss of key crime scene evidence and the probable cross contamination on the murder weapon.

I am now doing a second larger piece on the NYP investigation in 2010 into Diana Garbutt and the investigation into the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence in 2009.

To this end, I was hoping you could provide the following information. I am also reaching out to your PR department for comment:

Q1. Crime scene photographs show a clump of hair next to the body of Diana Garbutt, which was a different colour to her own and her husband. This evidence was said to be ‘lost’ by NYP. What disciplinary procedures are usually carried out when important evidence is lost and was there an internal investigation into this incident.

Q2. The DNA of a police officer searching the outside of the property was found on the murder weapon (which was discovered outside) but also on the pillow of the bed in which Diana Garbutt was murdered. At best this is cross contamination. What disciplinary procedures are usually carried out when cross contamination occurs and was there an internal investigation into this specific incident.

Q3. What were the key findings from the review into the Claudia Lawrence investigation and lessons learnt. Particularly, was there a conclusion that the investigation focused too much on 18th March rather than the 19th March

Q4. A FOI request response in October 2020 stated that a debrief was conducted by NYP into the murder investigation of Diana Garbutt which lasted just one day (13 May 2011). Given the severity of the case and the criticism levelled at NYP by the Judge at Robin Garbutt’s trial, is this the normal limited internal procedure.

Response

Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information

Q1 & Q2 are not valid under the FOI act in so much as Information is defined in section 84 of the Act as 'information recorded in any form'. The Act therefore only extends to requests for recorded information. It does not require public authorities to answer questions generally; only if they already hold the answers in recorded form. The Act does not extend to requests for information about policies or their implementation, or the merits or demerits of any proposal or action - unless, of course, the answer to any such request is already held in recorded form.

Q3. I am exempting any information to this question pursuant to Section 30 (Investigations). Please see the explanation below.

Explanation of exemptions

Section 17 of the Act requires North Yorkshire Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which: (a) states that fact, (b) specifies the exemption in question and (c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies. Please see the exemption explanations below.

Section 30 is a qualified, class-based exemption, which requires that I conduct a public interest test to balance the legitimate interests of the public in knowing the information against the interests of non-disclosure.

Public Interest Test S30

Reasons for Disclosure

Any disclosure may provide a better awareness which may reduce crime. The public have an interest in understanding how the police investigate crime. There is legitimate public interest in knowing how public funds are spent. Information would ensure transparency and accountability and enable the public to see what tactics are deployed by the Police Service to tackle/assist in fighting crime.

Reasons against Disclosure

Any disclosure could compromise law enforcement tactics. The force’s future law enforcement capabilities would be affected. Disclosure could hinder the prevention and detection and crime, as any offenders could potentially take measure to avoid detection. It is accepted that whilst investigations and prosecutions are ongoing, public authorities require a safe space in which to operate and premature disclosures could create intense media pressure which could present problems for the judicial processes.

Balancing Test

After considering the reasons for and against disclosure, it is my opinion that the reasons for non-disclosure outweigh the reasons for disclosure.

Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a refusal notice under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to part of your request.

Q4. No information held

Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data.  It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.