Female homicides recorded within the MPS area from March 2021 to January 2022

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.022617

I note you seek access to the following information:

I'm requesting information on how many women have been killed since the death of Sarah Everard. Ideally with their names and ages. How they were killed?

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 and proceedings
Section 38 (1) – Health & Safety
Section 40(2) and (3A) (a) – Personal information

Reason for decision

Having considered your request, I have today decided to provide you with the total number of Homicides committed and recorded within the MPS for the period you have requested, where the gender of the victim was female.

In regards to any further breakdown, I am not required by statute to release this additional information.

The Act creates a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities. A public authority in respect of a request must, if permitted, state under Section 1(a) of the Act, whether it holds the requested information and, if held, then communicate that information to the applicant under Section 1(b) of the Act.

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 unsuitable 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 30(1)(a) – INVESTIGATIONS - The ICO guidance states ‘Section 30(1) provides an exemption from the duty to disclose information that a public authority has held at any time for certain investigations or proceedings. As long as the other requirements of the exemption are satisfied, the exemption will apply to information even if it was not originally obtained or generated for one of those purposes and it will continue to protect information even if it is no longer being used for the specified investigation or proceeding. It is only necessary for the information to have been held at some point for those purposes…’

The MPS has a duty to conduct investigations with a view to ascertaining whether an offence has been committed, and if so, whether a person should be charged with that offence, and whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it. Consequently, the MPS as a public authority is entitled to rely upon Section 30(1) to the extent that the requested information, would have been held for the purpose of such investigations.

Any information generated by an investigation, needs to be treated with sensitivity. The harm in disclosing information relating to an investigation is inherent in the exemption.

Any consideration favouring disclosure has to be balanced against the harm that would be caused by how witnesses or others perceived how the MPS would treat any information which formed part of any investigation.

Section 38(1)(a) - HEALTH & SAFETY - The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance reminds public authorities that the use of the term ‘endanger’ equates to ‘prejudice’ and therefore this exemption is subject to a prejudice test. Additionally, the term ‘individual’ includes any specific individuals, any member of the public, or groups within society.

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential harm that would be likely to endanger the physical or mental health of individuals by disclosure. This will include family members, friends and witnesses who would have been deeply impacted by the death of an individual.

In this case the consequences of any release will generate national and local interest in the subject matter. As mentioned above, disclosing the information you have requested could also potentially lead to identifying a range of individuals and who could, as a result of any such disclosure, receive unwarranted attention by the media for example.

It would not be in the public interest to release the requested information, if the physical and/or mental wellbeing of family members, friends and others could be affected. Additionally, it would be harmful to disclosure such information, if family members, friends and others, grew in fear of being subjected to unwarranted attention by the media or other members of the public.

The risks to individuals are significant and there would be a loss of confidence in the police service to protect the well-being of individuals and the community.

Section 40(2)&(3A) (a) - PERSONAL INFORMATION - I consider that Section 40(2) and 40(3A)(a) - in regards to surviving family and friends - is applicable in this case, as disclosure at this level of detail, would breach the 1st data protection principle that requires personal data to be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to individuals.

There is no presumption of disclosure in relation to ‘personal data’ which is defined as: ‘any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual’

“Identifiable living individual” means a living individual who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to—

(a) An identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data or an online identifier, or
(b) One or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of the individual.’

For such disclosure to be lawful, it would be necessary to satisfy a condition within Article 6 of the GDPR. Article 6 sets out the six lawful bases, applying to all processing; one of which must be in place in every case of disclosure of personal data, in accordance with the first data protection principle. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) guidance provides:

‘In all circumstances, you must have an Article 6 lawful basis for processing.

There are six lawful bases for processing in Article 6, but only (a) consent or (f) legitimate interest are relevant to disclosure under FOIA or EIR.

In order to assess whether this lawful basis is engaged you need to consider three key questions:

(i) Purpose: what is the legitimate interest in disclosure of the information?
(ii) Necessity: is disclosure necessary for that purpose?
(iii) Balancing test: does the legitimate interest outweigh the interests and rights of the individual?’

I am satisfied that the disclosure of personal data as would be contained within the requested information would be unwarranted in the circumstances of this request. This is because the disclosure of this personal data is not necessary to satisfy the legitimate public interest and in relation to personal data, there is no presumption of disclosure. Furthermore, none of the conditions specified within Article 6 of the GDPR would be met.

Disclosure

I can inform you that the number of Homicides committed and recorded within the MPS between 05/03/2021 and 31/01/2022, where the gender of the victim was female, is 27.

Please note that this enquiry was limited to Notifiable offences (Current and Sub Classifications) of Homicide.

001/01	1. Murder - of persons ages 1 year or over. or 2. Genocide or Crime against humanity
001/02	Murder - of persons under 1 year of age.
004/01	Manslaughter.
004/02	Infanticid
004/10	Corporate Manslaughter.