Police staff/officers declaration of association with certain people

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023919

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please can you answer the below questions for the following calendar years:
2020 and 2021.

1) How many high-risk declarable association reports did the MPS receive over this period of time?

APP guidance on notifiable (declarable) associations states that officers and staff should declare specific association with people who, for instance:
• may have unspent criminal convictions;
• are under investigation or awaiting trial; or
• are the subject of criminal intelligence.

1b) Please can you state the month/year the report was received.

1c) Please can you describe- without giving away any identifying details- the nature of each of the associations (for example, an officer may have declared that they are in a romantic relationship with a drug user, or a person who has an unspent conviction for selling drugs).

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
Section 40(2)(3)&(4) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

I have applied Section 31 and Section 40 to questions 1, 1b and 1c as the requested information contains sensitive personal information that could be used by criminals to disrupt MPS operations cause distress to individuals and disrupt and distract officers from their core duties. Full details of the nature of association would most certainly identify individuals

Before I explain the reasons for the decisions I have made in relation to your request, I thought that it would be helpful if I outline the parameters set out by the Act within which a request for information can be answered. The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in receipt of a request must, if permitted, confirm if the requested information is held by that public authority and, if so, then communicate that information to the applicant.

The right of access to information is not without exception and is subject to a number of exemptions which are designed to enable public authorities to withhold information that is not suitable for release. Importantly, the Act is designed to place information into the public domain, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received.

Section 40 – Personal Information - Details of an investigation could cause an individual to be identified and is therefore exempted in this case. Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.

The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.

Some of the information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following which we consider to be Personal Data

• Full details of the Nature of Association, Reason for declaring and exact year and month, could, if disclosed, identify an individual.

Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.
In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3A, 3B and 4A of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (as amended by Section 58 of the Data Protection Act 2018).

The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.

There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34. In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.

Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement is engaged in this case as disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention and detection of crimes and the apprehension or prosecution of offenders.

Full disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to disrupt MPS operations, cause distress to individuals and distract officers from their core duties, this would in turn reduce the MPS service capability.

Full disclosure would have the effect of compromising law enforcement processes and would also hinder the ability of the MPS to fulfil its primary aim of enforcing the law and protecting the public. Any intelligence contained within the table is in use by Officers, any release of sensitive information could ruin trust within the MPS as Officers would have no reasonable expectation for that level of personal detail regarding associates and or family members to be released into the public domain. Any reduction in trust of the MPS has a negative impact on our ability to conduct future investigations.

Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive information into the public domain which would enable those with the capacity and inclination to try and use the information to disrupt MPS services.

By disclosing all the requested information, the criminal fraternity would be likely to use this information to try use to disrupt MPS services.

It is inevitably harmful to provide the criminal fraternity with current intelligence of the MPS. Law enforcement measures would be rendered less effective should the MPS Provide any additional information that may be held.

To provide all the requested information may compromise potential ongoing or future operations and or prosecutions, any reduction in trust could make witnesses less likely to come forward the consequence of which would hinder the prevention and/or detection of crime. It therefore remains the case that any sensitive information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of criminals.

Likewise, providing all the additional information provides intelligence that can be used by criminals to undermine the operational integrity of policing that would be likely to adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on the ability of the MPS to protect the public and uphold the law.

Disclosure

The harm of disclosure is reduced by redacting the Nature of Association, Reason for declaring and exact year and month within the table titled, Police Officer/staff association with people.

Police Officer/staff association with people.
Nature of association	Reason for declaring
Partner	criminal convictions
Partner	criminal convictions
Friend	criminal convictions
Partner	adverse intel
Partner	criminal convictions
Sister and sister's partner	criminal convictions
Partner	criminal convictions
Brothers	criminal convictions
Various family members	criminal convictions
Ex-partner	adverse intel
Brother	criminal convictions
Friend	criminal convictions
Son	criminal convictions
Partner	criminal convictions
Ex-partner	adverse intel
Various family members	criminal convictions
Acquaintance	adverse intel
Brother	adverse intel
Various Friends	adverse intel
Brother	adverse intel