Safeguarding children protocol
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.022683
I note you seek access to the following information:
1) Please provide a copy of the Met Police policy with regard to Section 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
2) Please provide a copy of your policy with regard to allegations of collusion by local authority children's services failure to investigate suspected peadophiles employed within their service.
3) Please provide a copy of your policy on recording complaints, assessing that complaint with regard to pursuing inquiries and criminal proceedings and informing complainant's about decision making.
4) Please provide a copy of your escalation procedure as available to complainants with regard to child sexual abuse where local police teams have failed to record and refused to investigate.
5) Please clarify the Met Police's understanding of their authority to access children's files held by children's services.
6) Please provide the line management structure, with named officers for SW London teams.
7) Please provide the line management structure above these locally operating teams.
8) Please provide organisational structures for specialist child abuse investigation teams and the policy and proceedure for escalating investigations to those specialist teams that lie outside and above local teams.
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 21(1) - Information which is reasonably accessible by other means
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information
Reason for decision
Section 21(1) - Information which is reasonably accessible by other means - Some of the information requested has been identified as being accessible via other means as it is already published. Where information is already in the public domain we are not required to re-publish the data; instead public authorities are required to direct you to the information, which we have done in this instance. This action is in accordance with section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act.
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information - The information sought in question six of your Freedom of Information request includes the names of all those working on teams in South West London. Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data, such as this, 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.
There are six Data Protection principles specified within Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which requires that personal data shall be:
‘processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject (‘lawfulness, fairness and transparency’);
Under the Data Protection Act 2018, 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.
Here, we need to balance the rights and freedoms of the individuals with any legitimate public interest in disclosure.
The MPS understands that most officers, due to their roles, are public facing. However, there is a difference between these officers interacting with members of the public as part of their duties and routinely publishing the names of serving officers and their current postings on the internet.
There is little benefit in disclosing the names of every member of staff, especially those of lower rank. The MPS publishes the names of those of specific ranks and seniority on the following webpage, which details the structure of the organisation. This demonstrates a level of openness and transparency.
In addition, there are ways of contacting the MPS without the need for disclosing details of specific teams or individuals. Therefore, this disclosure would not be necessary to meet any legitimate interest, and thus would not be necessary or proportionate in the circumstances.
Finally, it is for the MPS to consider whether disclosure of the requested information would cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects. Under the Act, and indeed in general, the MPS do not routinely disclose the name of serving members of staff as to do so would be unnecessary and potentially dangerous. All members of staff are entitled to a private life. Making public their names and roles would be likely to have an impact upon them and their families, which would be grossly unfair. In addition, officers are often at risk of retaliation. It is therefore entirely possible that such information, if disclosed, would be used by those willing to target officers with whom they may have had dealings. This would be distressing for the involved parties and would have a lasting impact. In addition, disclosing the names of officers may have an impact upon law enforcement at a later point. Should these officers want to go into more sensitive areas of policing, they may not be able to should they be easily identified.
Furthermore, MPS privacy notices indicate that personal data is collected and used for policing purposes and will not further processed in a manner that is incompatible with those purposes.
MPS Privacy Notice
Special category and Criminal Convictions - Personal data policy
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 in this way.
Disclosure in the circumstances of your request would thus be unlawful and would therefore contravene the first data protection principle.
Disclosure
Please provide a copy of the Met policy with regard to Section 11 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
Section 11 places a duty upon the MPS to ensure that our functions are discharged in connection with safeguarding children. There is not a specific policy document that encapsulating this and therefore this is technically not held. The Child Abuse Investigation Guide, London Child Protection Procedures and others including our general investigation policy instead refer.
Please provide a copy of your policy with regard to allegations of collusion by local authority children's services failure to investigate suspected paedophiles employed within their service.
There is no specific policy so again, this information is not held.
Depending upon the offences that are being alleged, once the crime had been reported to police here the report would be allocated to our child abuse investigation teams, located upon every base command unit (BCU).
Please provide a copy of your policy on recording complaints, assessing that complaint with regard to pursuing inquiries and criminal proceedings and informing complainant's about decision making.
The MPS policy is to use The IOPC Statutory Guidance and the Home Office Guidance when recording & assessing all complaints including those involving injuries and criminal allegations. The guidance also outlines the minimum standard for contact with complainants. These can be found attached.
Please provide a copy of your escalation procedure as available to complainants with regard to child sexual abuse where local police teams have failed to record and refused to investigate.
The changes to the Police Reform Act in 2020 mean that all complaints must be recorded under Schedule 3
Local forces can attempt to resolve dissatisfaction outside of Schedule 3 under certain circumstances but not where a complainant specifically asks for their concerns to be recorded. Not all public complaints will be investigated. Where a complainant wishes to escalate a decision made by the MPS they will have a right of review to either MoPAC or to the IOPC. The review body is dependent on the nature of the complaint. The procedures are defined in the IOPC Statutory guidance, which has been attached.
Please clarify the Met Police's understanding of their authority to access children's files held by children’s services.
The MPS adhere to the Joint Protocol on 3rd Party Material (with the Crown Prosecution Service) encapsulating duties of disclosure under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Where a third party refuses to allow inspection of any third party material (children’s files would be in this category) or requires the prosecution to obtain an order before handing over copies, the prosecutor will consider it appropriate to obtain a witness summons under S.2 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 or Section 97 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. Part 28 of the Criminal Procedure Rules and paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the code should be followed.
The relevant legislation and guidance referred to can be found linked below:
CPS - Joint Protocol on Third Party material 2018
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/25/contents
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/69/section/2
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/97
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/rules-and-practice-directions-2020
Please provide the line management structure, with named officers for SW London teams.
The BCU is led by a Chief Superintendent, who has Superintendents responsible for specific parts of the Command. These would include Public Protection, Response Teams, and Neighbourhoods etc. Chief Inspectors oversee a business area, with Inspectors running teams, and Sergeants supervising the Constables within the teams.
The names of the officers in these specific teams has been exempt in accordance with Section 40(2)(3A)(a).
Please provide the line management structure above these locally operating teams.
The BC Commander (of Chief Superintendent rank) reports to a Commander within Frontline Policing. This Commander reports to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Frontline Policing) who reports to the Assistant Commissioner (Frontline Policing), then Deputy Commissioner, and finally the Commissioner.
Please provide organisational structures for specialist child abuse investigation teams and the policy and procedure for escalating investigations to those specialist teams that lie outside and above local teams.
Child Abuse Teams are based on our BCUs. There is a Complex Investigation Team whose role it is to investigate criminal allegations of serious and/or complex sexual abuse referred to the Complex Investigation Team either internally through the Met or by external partners. Additionally they investigate complex Female Genital Mutilation cases and complex linked series sexual offences.
Criteria for referral are:-
a. The alleged victim or abuser is a person of prominence in public life, or
b. Where the abuse has repeatedly taken place in an institutional setting and it appears there have been failings identified within that institution, or
c. Recent DNA identifications on complex sexual offence cold case investigations
AND/OR
The allegation of sexual abuse is so serious or complex that in the opinion of the DCI, the CIT should investigate it.
d. To investigate complex cases of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). Where there is a primary offence of FGM (Flagged PG on CRIS), Continuous Policing Improvement Command (CPIC) will escalate the matter to DCI CIT for a joint assessment with a view to taking primacy for all aspects of the investigation. The circumstances in which an investigation is considered complex will be many and varied and would include the number of suspects, victims and locations.