Reviews of 'Unduly Lenient' sentences
A Freedom of Information request to Attorney General's Office by Stephen Gradwick
The request was rejected by Attorney General's Office.
Stephen Gradwick
6 August 2008
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please could you advise me of the number of requests the Attorney
General's Office have received requesting that 'unduly lenient'
sentences be reviewed between 1st July 2006 and 30th June 2007.
I would also like to know how many of these requests resulted in
reviews being carried out, how many requests were refused and if
any were refused, what grounds they were refused on.
Yours faithfully,
Stephen Gradwick
Shariq Ali
Attorney General's Office
2 September 2008
Dear Sir,
Please find attached the response to your request for information under
the Freedom of Information Act.
Yours faithfully,
Shariq Ali
Freedom of Information Team
Attorney General's Office
show quoted sections
Stephen Gradwick
2 September 2008
Dear Shariq Ali,
Please provide a LEGIBLE response to this request and if a document
is intended to be attached, please attach a LEGIBLE document.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Gradwick
Shariq Ali
Attorney General's Office
3 September 2008
Dear Mr Gradwick,
I apologise for the fact you have been unable to open the attached
letter. We send all attached documents in a read-only format (pdf I
believe it is called). Is it the case you do not have the Adobe Acrobat
software programme which I think is necessary to open and read?
Regards
Shariq
show quoted sections
Stephen Gradwick
3 September 2008
Dear Shariq Ali,
I have a PDF reader, however, there wasn't any file attached to the
submission.
The reply reads exactly as follows...
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C90CDE.8D04E7BE Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear=20Sir,=20
Please=20find=20attached=20the=20response=20to=20your=20request=20for=20in=
formation=20under the=20Freedom=20of=20Information=20Act.
Yours=20faithfully,
Shariq=20Ali Freedom=20of=20Information=20Team
If I expand the response you supplied, this is an example of what I
see on my screen...
Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="Mr Gradwick.pdf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: Mr
Gradwick.pdf Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Mr
Gradwick.pdf"
JVBERi0xLjQNMSAwIG9iag08PCAvVHlwZSAvWE9iamVjdCAvU3VidH
And that string on indecipherable characters runs on and on for
several hundred thousand characters...
The response provided, for whatever reason is illegible and there
is no option to open a PDF file.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Gradwick
Shariq Ali
Attorney General's Office
3 September 2008
Dear Mr Gradwick,
Perhaps I should try re-sending (herewith), in the event the same
happens I could either fax the letter to you, or send it as hardcopy
through Royal Mail. I would need to ask for these details as I currently
only have your e-mail address.
Many thanks, I appreciate your patience.
Shariq
show quoted sections
Shariq Ali
Attorney General's Office
3 September 2008
Apologies. Herewith.
show quoted sections
Stephen Gradwick
3 September 2008
Dear Shariq Ali,
Sadly, the problem is still occurring.
I do not have a fax number to which you could send the response and
I am reluctant to provide my home address publicly over the
internet.
I have therefore just spoken with one of your colleagues who gave
his name as 'Tim' and he has taken a note of my home address and
has assured me he will pass this information on to you which I hope
will be satisfactory?
I look forward to recieving the response in the post in the next
couple of days.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen Gradwick
Francis Irving left an annotation (4 September 2008)
I've now fixed the rendering bug, and you should be able to download the PDF fine.
Thanks for your patience Stephen and Shariq.
Things to do with this request
Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
Stephen Gradwick only:
Reply to Shariq Ali
|
Request an internal review
Attorney General's Office only:
Respond to request






Francis Irving left an annotation (4 September 2008)
I'm currently working on fixing it - it is caused by an underlying bug in Ruby's TMail mail processing library.
Link to this