Vehicle seizures and removals in 2021

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.026387

I note you seek access to the following information:

**AMENDED REQUEST**
- The total number of recoveries for all vehicle types for each relevant recovery category, split by vehicles "seized", "removed" or both in the 2021 calendar year.

- The number of the above vehicles that have been restored to their owners. If possible can this just show those returned to registered keepers, unless I have misunderstood your response and this can't be provided, in which case can I just receive the total number restored.

**PREVIOUS REQUEST**
- The number of vehicles seized by the force in the 2021 calendar year
- A breakdown of the number of cars seized above by the recoded reason for the seizure.
- The number of the above vehicles that were returned to their owners.

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 30(1) - Investigations
Section 31(1) - Law Enforcement
Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies

Reason for decision

You have asked questions regarding investigations into details of the total number of recoveries for all vehicle types for each relevant recovery category.

The MPS refuses access to any further information regarding recovery categories V1, B5 or M2 listed within the file titled Vehicles Seized 2021, by virtue of the following exemptions:

Constituents of this information attract Section 30, others Section 31 of the Act.

It should not be surmised that we are applying Sections 30 & 31 to the same pieces of information.

Section 30(1)(a) – Investigations - of the Act states that information should be exempt if the question asked refers to information gathered for the purposes of an investigation.

Under Section 30(1)(a) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information relating to investigations where its release would, or would be likely to, have an adverse effect upon other investigations or the prosecution of offenders.

Details of the resources allocated to enquiries before their completion provides insight into the scale, nature and methodology applied to such operations. This has the effect of undermining that methodology.

Information relating to an investigation will rarely be disclosed under the Act and only where there is a strong public interest consideration favouring disclosure.

Under the Act we cannot and do not request the motives of any applicant for information. We have no doubt the vast majority of applications under the Act are legitimate and do not have any ulterior motives. However, in disclosing information to one applicant we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world.
This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested applicant automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure to anyone, including those who might represent a threat to individuals or any possible criminal and/or civil process.

The MPS does not generally disclose information or intelligence relating to investigations except through our Directorate of Media & Communication to the media. This is so potential witnesses are not discouraged to come forward and provide statements in relation to investigations.

The manner in which investigations are conducted is usually kept in strict secrecy so that the tactics and lines of enquiry that are followed do not become public knowledge thereby rendering them useless.

Detailing the resources allocated to a specific area of an investigation will give a clear insight into the nature and scope of any enquiry. Should the public be given such information suspects or potential suspects not yet arrested or interviewed could be alerted to police interest or the extent of police interest. As such while such information may seem innocuous there is the potential for that information to frustrate the operational enquiry team by alerting suspects or giving then prior notice of police activity.

During the course of any investigation enquires are made to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation.

The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and the public release of the modus operandi employed during the course of any enquiry could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further, similar investigations.

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.

Release would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and strategies and would also hinder any future investigations or review investigations into similar matters.

Disclosure would technically be releasing sensitive operational information into the public domain which would enable those with the time, capacity and inclination to try and map strategies and tactics used by police forces.

Release 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 documents in use by Officers any release of tactical information could harm our ability to conduct that assessment and reduce our ability to conduct future investigations.

Disclosure would technically be releasing information into the public domain which would enable those with the capacity and inclination to try and use the information to commit crime or evade justice.

Care must be taken to not compromise any strand of an investigation or cause any undue harm to any people or families involved.

The MPS has a duty to protect both witnesses and suspects of criminal investigations and the integrity of tried and tested investigative techniques used now and for future criminal investigations. Therefore, I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would undermine individuals' confidence in helping the MPS with investigations. Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect, reducing the quality of information the MPS receives and consequently compromising the effectiveness of any investigation.

The disclosure of this information to the public by the MPS would inhibit the flow of free and frank discussion, sharing of advice and best practices for investigations between police services. Anything that undermines this would have a detrimental effect on the thoroughness, efficiency and effectiveness of police investigations and ultimately the apprehension and prosecution of offenders.

I consider that considerations favouring non-disclosure of the requested information far outweighs the considerations favouring disclosure.

The MPS can neither confirm nor deny that it holds any other information relevant to your request as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Act does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption:

Section 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies - Information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters. The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would involve the disclosure of any information (whether or not already recorded) which was directly or indirectly supplied to the public authority by, or relates to, any of the bodies specified in subsection (3).

Disclosure

Please see attached a spreadsheet, pursuant to your request for information.

This information is supplied subject to the following data caveat:

The data has been taken from our car pound computer system called the Easy Link Vehicle Information System (ELVIS). This is a live system and as such records are subject to review and change. Therefore data analysis over time can produce different results.