Information about Operation Boxster

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.027379

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to you to request the following information relating to Operation Boxster. As you will be aware, Operation Boxster has been run off and on for months. Where, in the below questions, I ask for X data broken down by month you should take this to only mean data that is centrally held and easily retrievable.

If, for example, there was a month when Boxster ran but not under the auspices of a fully staffed team and so the data is held on paper or in some other hard to locate way, you should note that it would engage cost to retrieve it and move on to the next month/relevant time period. To reject the entire FOI because there are time periods where to retrieve the data would engage cost would go against the wording of my FOI request and necessitate intervention by the ICO.

If there are months where Boxster did not run at all, please note that with a dash or similar but not a zero as that could imply that Boxster ran but no one was counted/arrested/cautioned etc.

I repeat again that I am only requesting easily retrievable data, i.e. electronic data. If anything requires a manual search, this FOI request should be interpreted as not wanting this to be done.

1. Since the commencement of Operation Boxster until the present (date of sending this FOI or latest date you have information for), how many sex workers have been counted by Operation Boxster? Please break this information down by month and year (or relevant period - e.g. if data is collected quarterly), age and nationality and/or ethnicity.

2. Since the commencement of Operation Boxster until the present (date of sending this FOI or latest date you have information for), how many sex workers have been arrested by Operation Boxster? Please break this information down by month and year (or relevant period - e.g. if data is collected quarterly), age and nationality and/or ethnicity.

3. Since the commencement of Operation Boxster until the present (date of sending this FOI or latest date you have information for), how many sex workers have been cautioned by Operation Boxster? Please break this information down by month and year (or relevant period - e.g. if data is collected quarterly), age and nationality and/or ethnicity.

4. Since the commencement of Operation Boxster until the present (date of sending this FOI or latest date you have information for), how many sex workers have received a "prostitute's caution" under Operation Boxster? Please break this information down by month and year (or relevant period - e.g. if data is collected quarterly), age and nationality and/or ethnicity.

5. Please provide me with any and all Data Protection Impact Assessments for Operation Boxster.

6. Since the commencement of Operation Boxster until the present (date of sending this FOI or latest date you have information for), how many stop and searches have been carried out under Operation Boxster? Please break this information down by month and year (or relevant period - e.g. if data is collected quarterly), age and nationality and/or ethnicity. If possible, please only provide information on stop and searches of sex workers; if this would require a manual review of stop and search records please do not do that and just provide general stop and search figures for the operation.

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. However, lots of the data has been aggregated in order to avoid the identification of individuals and in addition, some of the information that has been requested is not held, therefore this response serves as a partial Refusal Notice under Section 17(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information

Reason for decision

Operation Boxster focuses on a small stretch of road frequented mainly by the same group of individuals. Although this may change over time, it remains fairly static. The risk of disclosing any data is therefore high in relation to the possible identification, or misidentification, of individuals. Breaking down all of the information requested by age, nationality and time period (given the locality is already known) makes the chance of identifying these individuals and finding out additional, often sensitive, information about them even greater.

Due to this fact, information has been provided where possible. However, sometimes no breakdown has been given. In other cases, some information has been broken down but other information has been aggregated. In all cases, the information has been grouped together by type in an uncorrelated format in order to mitigate the risk.

Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information - Data disclosed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act is disclosed to the world, and not just to the individual requesting the information. This is best demonstrated by the FOI disclosures on the Disclosure Log section of the MPS website.

You have requested specific record level data. This level of information is not suitable for public consumption. Should the MPS publish crime data at the level requested, it would be at a level that would make the identification of individuals extremely possible. To produce and publish crime related information at a level that would identify the involved parties would not be lawful, fair or in line with our processing commitments. Thus, disclosure of the information at record level is exempt in accordance with section 40(2)(3A)(a) of the Act.

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.

The information sought under your Freedom of Information request is at such a level that, if disclosed, would provide enough detail (age, ethnicity, time and location) to identify the individuals involved.

In addition, the requested information also constitutes personal data relating to criminal offences (as defined in GDPR Article 10 and Section 11(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018), specifically information relating to:

• proceedings for an offence committed or alleged to have been committed by one or more data subjects or the disposal of such proceedings, including sentencing.

It is often believed that such information, even if detailed, is unlikely to allow anyone to actually identify those involved as the data is ‘too abstract’ and ‘there would be no way of knowing who these people were unless you were there’ for example. However, when considering identifiability, we have to assume that we are not looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary man in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a determined person (or a ‘motivated intruder’) with a particular reason to want to identify individuals. Examples would include investigative journalists, estranged partners, stalkers, to name but a few.

If this level of data was to be disclosed, it could be pieced together with information already known by individuals or already in the public domain in order to identify the individuals involved. As explained, this data relates to a small stretch of road frequented regularly by a relatively number of individuals. To disclose the information requested may allow such individuals to ascertain or infer that a specific allegation or incident relates to a particular individual. This would be unfair to those cautioned / arrested / stop and searched for these offences.

Considering this, I believe disclosing record level crime data in the format requested would definitely enable motivated individuals to identify those involved.

Therefore, where the request is seeking information that would essentially allow access to third party personal data (such as in this case) 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 3(A), 3(B) and 4(A) 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.

The MPS recognises that there may be a legitimate public interest in disclosing the information requested. A legitimate interest is inherent in the disclosure of information upon request under the Freedom of Information Act given the associated benefit of enhancing the transparency and accountability of public authorities.

Disclosure of the information requested may also help increase public awareness around this matter and the type of individuals’ involved. This may increase public participation and debate in relation to crime and empower members of the public to hold public authorities to account and make informed choices. For example, individuals may be more likely to undertake action to prevent crime or be able to factor the volume and types of crime into any decision to live or frequent an area. This may also have a positive effect upon public safety.

There are already established procedures in place for disclosing information when to do so would enable individuals to take preventative steps to avoid being the victim of crime and to assist in the apprehension of offenders. For example, the MPS regularly issue crime prevention advice to victims of crime and the public at large. This may be through crime prevention leaflets, advice and guidance on the MPS Internet site or via news media.

The MPS also issues press releases and appeals for information where to do so would aid an investigation.

Local crime data is also regularly published on the Internet via various official sources, for example the MPS crime mapping website or the UK crime mapping sites. These sites publish crime data that is low level, but anonymised.

Finally, it is for the MPS to consider whether disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects.

Disclosure of the information requested may cause unwarranted harm to the interests of individuals. This is due to the fact that the details of involvement with the police relates to the private lives of individuals. Therefore, they would not expect this information to be placed under public scrutiny.

I have also considered whether it would be reasonable for members of the public to expect details of their involvement with the police to be disclosed.

The purposes for which the MPS can process personal data are outlined in our privacy notices. These privacy notices indicate that personal data is collected and used for policing purposes only and will not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.

With this in mind, the data subjects in the circumstances of your request would have a legitimate expectation that personal data would not be used for non-policing purposes.

Therefore, it would be reasonable for an individual to expect any information about them held by the MPS to only be used to support a policing purpose. This supports the argument that disclosure of the information requested would be unlawful and unfair to individuals.

Disclosure

Please find attached what can be provided in relation to questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

Please note, the data provided could relate to the same individuals; each record does not necessarily equate to one individual.

Please also note, Operation Boxster did not run between January and March 2021 so no data can be provided for these dates. This has been indicated in the data.

Q1 - Since the commencement of Operation Boxster until the present (date of sending this FOI or latest date you have information for), how many sex workers have been counted by Operation Boxster? Please break this information down by month and year (or relevant period - e.g. if data is collected quarterly), age and nationality and/or ethnicity.

In relation to question 1, the counting of sex workers seen by the officers only commenced from August 2021. Prior to this no data is held.

Q2 - Since the commencement of Operation Boxster until the present (date of sending this FOI or latest date you have information for), how many sex workers have been arrested by Operation Boxster? Please break this information down by month and year (or relevant period - e.g. if data is collected quarterly), age and nationality and/or ethnicity.

In relation to question 2, the data provided is based on arrests for Loitering/Soliciting offences and does not include arrests for other criminal offences. The data covers the periods of permanent staffing on Boxster.

Q6 - Since the commencement of Operation Boxster until the present (date of sending this FOI or latest date you have information for), how many stop and searches have been carried out under Operation Boxster? Please break this information down by month and year (or relevant period - e.g. if data is collected quarterly), age and nationality and/or ethnicity. If possible, please only provide information on stop and searches of sex workers; if this would require a manual review of stop and search records please do not do that and just provide general stop and search figures for the operation.

In relation to question 6, data from June 2020 until December 2020 is not available. During that period, numerous officers had short attachments to staff the operation. Search data is on individual officers and the time involved to ascertain which officers were deployed and when would take this request over the required time limit and could not be relied on to be accurate. Due to permanent staffing since March 2021 we have been able to provide the information within the time limit. The only other way in which it may have been possible to retrieve this data would be to individually search each sex worker and scan each record to see if it fell within the dates required, however this too would exceed the appropriate limit (especially as the 18 hour threshold was nearly reached collating this data).

Finally, the MPS does not hold a DPIA for Operation Boxster at this time. There is a draft which is in the process of being reviewed by the appropriate team before it can be finalised and published.