LFR watchlists

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025506

I note you seek access to the following information:

Redefinition of Q2:
For question 2 please can you tell me what distance the LFR camera is able to work over (minimum and maximum distances it can recognise people)

For question 3 please can you tell me the average cost of a deployment.

REQUEST 1:
Please can you tell me if people with spent convictions are included on LFR watchlists?

REQUEST 2:
Do you have any other information about LFR that hasn’t been released that may be of interest to the public?

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 31(1)(a)&(b) Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

The information requested for the redefined Q2 which requests the distances LFR cameras are able to cover is not suitable for open publication as it would assist individuals who seek to disrupt MPS systems. Such action, if successful, would have a serious impact on our ability to enforce the law. Therefore we have applied the exemption provided under Section 31 of the Act (Law Enforcement) to your request.

Disclosure of the distances LFR cameras can operate would enable individuals with criminal intent to avoid detection. This would be likely to cause harm to the MPS as it would disrupt our core functions. Subsequently harm would then be likely to occur in respect of individuals who would be more likely to become a victim of crime if our systems/processes were disrupted and this would also have implications for the wider community and other organisations we work with (including other
police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service).

The release of this information could compromise the MPS’s law enforcement capabilities and the effectiveness of the force will be reduced. It could undermine current and/or future strategies when carrying out investigations and gathering evidence may be compromised. The personal safety of individuals is of paramount importance to the Police Service and must be considered in response of every release. A disclosure under Freedom of Information is a release to the world and, in this case, confirmation of what software and servers our systems operate with, would negatively impact on the work of the MPS and also put our information at risk.

Law Enforcement is reliant on community engagement, intelligence and evidence gathering and when it is appropriate, information is given to the public. What has been established in this case is the fact that the release of information relating to technologies used would be harmful and have an adverse effect on the investigative process and on the public prevention or detection of crime and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders. This places the victims of such offending at a greater risk towards their health and wellbeing and is not an action the Police Service would be willing to take. These negatives outweigh any tangible community benefit and therefore the balance does not favour a confirmation or denial statement at this time.

Disclosure

For Question 1 the College of Policing APP for Live Facial Recognition provides an outline of who is included within watchlists as well as the Standard Operating Procedure for LFR.

For Question 3 this information is not held as we do not record deployment costs.