All inter and intra communications

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025733

I note you seek access to the following information:

With respect to this FoIA request, please provide the case metadata.

This shall include but not be limited to:

• All inter and intra communications, held in any format.
• Distribution list and replies to all communications.
• Please provide the direct contact details for the Head of the Metropolitan Police.

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) - Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information

Reason for decision

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

In deliberating whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure. I have claimed this exemption in that the release of the redacted section within the document entitled “Attachment to document 5” would highlight those types of requests that seek stakeholder engagement and in turn undermine policing.

The MPS is a public authority and ultimately accountable to the general public. When any request for information is made to the police, it is important that the MPS are transparent, where possible, in responding to that request for information. Disclosing the requested information would reinforce the Met’s commitment to transparency and most importantly accountability with the general public.

However, the release of a document would provide persons intent on disrupting their work, with information that would assist them to do so. The redacted sections would highlight those types of requests that seek stakeholder engagement and in turn undermine policing. It cannot be in the public interest to disclose information which would undermine our ability to conduct our work.

Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information - provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, the disclosure of personal data is considered to be lawful if:

a. There is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of that personal data.
b. The disclosure of the personal data is necessary to meet that legitimate interest.
c. The disclosure would not cause unwarranted harm to the data subject.

Having considered the release of information relating to staff names and their contact details, names of members of the public and text which are considered personal information. I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that:

a. The disclosure of this information would satisfy an identifiable legitimate interest, being to provide information that will show transparency.

b. This disclosure of the requested personal data is necessary to satisfy the legitimate interest identified at point a.

c. However, publication of the details of all the redacted text would be likely to lead to unwanted and unsolicited intrusion into their personal lives. In this regard, I believe that disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted harm.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Disclosure

Contact details for the Commissioner’s office is as follows: [email protected]

This E mail address is not direct to the Commissioner. His E mail account is monitored by his staff. E mails are directed to other areas within the MPS where necessary so that subject area experts can deal with them appropriately.

Everyone has a right to contact the Commissioner to raise issues and concerns. However, for the Commissioner to deal personally with all telephone calls and E-mails received would detract him away from the management of the policing of London and the high level decision making which his role entails.