Information about special police services

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.024824

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. Please provide details of each time that “special police services” were provided to a person for charge, pursuant to the power in S.25(1) of the Police Act 1996, from 2017-2022.

2. Please provide further information on the “special police services” provided to the Keeper of the Privy Purse of the Royal Household in 2019/2020 for £11,154, as disclosed by the Metropolitan Police Service pursuant to FOIA request no: 01.FOI.21.019268. In your response, please provide details of:

a. The occasion and/or purpose for which the “special police services” were provided;
b. The date(s) the “special police services” were provided; and
c. What the “special police services” consisted of.

Clarification:
By “a person” we mean the name of each individual and/or organisation that the Metropolitan police service provided “special police services” to for charge, pursuant to Section 25(1) of the Police Act 1996. Guidance on the definition of “special police services” can be found within the National Policing Guidelines on Charging for Police Services (2022).

We seek details on each time the Metropolitan police service provided these “special police services” to any organisation and/or individual over the past five years. At a minimum, we require (i) the date that they were provided; and (ii) the value of the consideration paid for those services. If the information is easily available, we would also like, in each instance: the number of vehicles, the location of where the services were provided and the details of the events in question for which the services were provided.

Clarification:
In relation to question 1 of our FOI n. 01/FOI/22/024824, we confirm that at a minimum we require the information that was previously disclosed in response to 01.FOI.21.019268, but for the extended period of 2017-2021.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 24(1) – National Security
Section 31(1)(a) and (b) – Law Enforcement
Section 38(1)(b) – Health and Safety

Reason for decision

To disclose the information relevant to Question 2 of your request, and requests of a similar nature, would reveal the resources and capabilities of RaSP. Such information would be of value to those who may seek to identify perceived or actual vulnerabilities in protective security arrangements and would therefore be detrimental to national security and law enforcement.

To disclose specific dates or occasions (some of which may be recurring) when Special Police Services were provided by RaSP would be of value to those who may seek to disrupt or cause harm on such occasions and would therefore be detrimental to the MPS’ law enforcement role.

In addition, the disclosure of details relating to the role of RaSP via Special Police Services would ultimately increase the risk of harm to those afforded protection and to the general public within their vicinity.

Section 24 - National Security
Section 31 - Law Enforcement
Section 38 - Health and Safety

Based on this definition national security encompasses a wide spectrum and it is our duty to protect the people within the UK. Public safety is of paramount importance to the policing purpose and must be taken into account in deciding whether to disclose specific information.

To disclose the requested information would allow interested criminal parties to gain an advantage and increased awareness of policing decisions and operations used to safeguard national security.

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication.

This is because, under the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, disclosing specific details of Special Police Services provided by RaSP could indicate relative vulnerabilities of security provisions at a particular location. As a result, this would provide those intent on committing criminal or terrorist acts at such locations with valuable information as to the level of resistance they might expect to encounter. They would therefore gain an understanding of the capabilities of the Force and potential vulnerabilities could be more easily identified.

The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It should be recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. The UK faces a sustained threat from violent terrorists and extremists. Since 2006 the UK Government have published the threat level, as set by the security service (MI5), based upon current intelligence and that threat level has predominantly been set at the second highest level severe. The current threat level to the UK is substantial, the Home Office website explains that.

Disclosure of the requested information would prejudice the prevention of crime. To provide details of Special Police Services provided by RaSP would highlight to a criminal which crimes are likely to go undetected at a particular location or within the immediate surrounding area. This may encourage them to commit further similar offences or modify their criminal behaviour to reduce the probability of being apprehended.

Modern-day policing is intelligence led and information of this nature needs to be treated with extreme sensitivity as it could have a detrimental effect on the operational effectiveness of the MPS. There are significant risks associated with the release of such information, as to provide the requested data would allow criminals an insight to how the police operate. This information would be of use to those who seek to cause harm to members of the public or individuals in receipt of protection by gaining an understanding of resources used and occasions when RaSP provide Special Police Services. Such information would provide people who wish to harm members of the public, or others, with the opportunity of disrupting police activity.

This could be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public. Additionally, it might require the MPS to have to increase the amount of officers available to them, thus increasing the cost to the public purse.

It is not in the public interest to disclose all of the requested information as it would detrimentally affect the safeguarding of national security in respect of locations and individuals within them. Those planning criminal or terrorist acts are known to conduct extensive research into the levels of opposition they might encounter.

Disclosure of the information requested would provide such individuals or groups with valuable information relating to the resources and capabilities of RaSP and the level of protection afforded on specific occasions.

Given the current threat level, disclosure would therefore be detrimental to the safeguarding of national security. The disclosure of additional information would also require police tactics to be reviewed, which would create an unnecessary burden on both staffing and financial resources. Such unnecessary expenditure would not be in the public interest.

The public interest is not what interests the public but what will be of greater good if released to the community as a whole. It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS’s ability to accomplish its core functions of law enforcement.

Full disclosure of the requested information would compromise security arrangements by providing terrorists, criminals or fixated individuals with vital intelligence as to the nature of protection that might be afforded on specific occasions. The disclosure of such operational information would assist criminals in taking steps to avoid detection or apprehension.

Disclosure of specific details of Special Police Services provided by RaSP would enable those with a criminal intent to seek to cause harm by targeting perceived vulnerabilities in these arrangements, which would impact on those being protected, protection officers and members of the public. The health and safety of individuals is of paramount importance to the MPS and any disclosure which endangers this cannot be in the public interest.

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge information if to do so would place the safety of the public or an individual at risk or undermine national security and law enforcement and therefore compromise the work of the Police Service. Whilst there is a public interest in transparency of the use of policing resources and its effectiveness against threats posed to the public and others; and in policing operations and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by criminals or terrorists, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both national security and the integrity of police arrangements in this highly sensitive area.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of national security this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The strongest reason favouring disclosure is transparency and it is recognised that there is a genuine public interest in information relating to the use of Special Police Services.

However, the strongest reason favouring non-disclosure is ensuring that security measures are not rendered less effective by providing additional details of resources or capabilities used by the MPS. In addition to this, it is necessary to ensure that criminals are not provided with information which allows them to commit acts and evade capture, therefore hindering the effective delivery of operational law enforcement and increasing the risk of harm to those who are the subject of protective arrangements. It is for these reasons I have determined that the balance test favours non-disclosure of part of the requested information.

Disclosure

Please find attached two spreadsheets which provide information on the Special Police Services provided under contractual and ‘ad hoc’ arrangements for the years 2017/18 to 2021/22.