CAD messages relating to specified UME's

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.020843

I note you seek access to the following information:

I would like to know the number of CAD messages that were related to these specific events UMEs:

This rave in Brixton:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12218121/cops-yobs-at-brixton-illegal-rave/

This rave in North London:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-53462988

This rave in Barking:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/illegal-rave-london-coronavirus-lockdown-barking-b1370972.html

This rave in Walthamstow Forest
https://djmag.com/news/500-person-rave-london-shut-down-police

I would like to know the date and time that the CAD message was created as well as the reason for its creation (was it a 999 call? etc).

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 - Law Enforcement
Section 40 - Personal data

Reason for decision

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) provides public access to information held by public authorities. The act details certain requirements, one of which, is that public authorities have an obligation to confirm or deny, when permitted, whether the information requested exists. Further to this, public authorities have a duty to communicate this to the requester. The act also lists a number of exemptions, meaning that requests can be refused if a public authority has a good reason why they cannot comply with the request. If any or all parts of a request are refused then a written refusal notice must be sent to the requester. It is worth noting that information that is made available under the Act is published on the MPS website, making it readily available to the public at large, and not just the individual making the request. Due consideration was given to this fact when I reviewed your request.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a) allows public authorities to withhold information if it is likely to or would prejudice ‘The prevention or detection of crime’.

I have claimed Section 31(1)(a) as it is my belief that releasing the data in its entirety could lead to the erosion of public trust and ultimately make some members of the public less likely to provide information to the MPS in the future. Information that is made available under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is published by the MPS via the publication scheme, making it readily available to the public, and not just the individual making the request. Due consideration must and has been be given to this fact.

There are a number of factors which effect the ability of the MPS to prevent and detect crime. One of which centres on public engagement and public trust. How comfortable are the public with reporting crime? Can the MPS be trusted with information provided by the public? When a member of the public calls the police to report an offence, there is an expectation that the allegation will remain confidential. This provides the public with the confidence to report allegations and offences in the MPS district, without the fear of being identified to the wider public. By providing you with the exact details of date, time and reason for the CADs creation could lead to the identification of the individual who made the call.

You may ask how this is possible, and to demonstrate this, I am going to provide an example. Increasingly Ring doorbells are installed outside of many people’s homes. This doorbell gives you access to a video feed of what’s happening outside your door and, with a subscription to the Ring Protect Plan, the doorbell will record events in real time. The ring doorbell is triggered by motion in front of the doorbell and will then store the footage. If an individual calls the police outside somebody’s house this could be audible on a ring door bell. This would also show the exact time and date of a call and you could also establish that this was a call made by via 999 or 101 as opposed to an online report. A combination of all of these pieces of information therefore could lead to individual’s being identified. This would be in direct contravention of the assumed belief that the process of reporting allegations to police is confidential. Therefore the MPS would not seek to release information that could identify any caller. We must maintain the trust between the public and the MPS even if the information provided was in connection with an event as opposed to a crime committed against the caller. However, with the absence of the time, date and method this completely removes the risk of identifying any individual.

It is important to note that if there is a perceived risk that an individual could be identified, no matter how small the risk could be, this would undoubtedly erode the public’s trust. This is likely to make individuals less likely to call the MPS in the future. It may also make individuals that have already reported allegations worry that these could be disclosed at some point. This causes a clear and obvious problem and it is in this regard that the release of all the data requested would be counterproductive to our efforts to maintain public confidence and trust and maintain law enforcement.

You have sought ‘the number of CAD messages that were related to these specific events UMEs’ and ‘the date and time that the CAD message was created as well as the reason for its creation (was it a 999 call? etc)’.

I have found that if I were to disclose all the requested data this would reinforce the MPS’s commitment to transparency with the public. I accept that this has wider connatations. Openess is linked to trust, the very trust necessary to instill a sense of confidence in the MPS.

Conversely, I have also found that there is a compelling argument that if the MPS were to disclose all the requested data, this could identify the individual making the allegation. The combination of the time, date, and method makes this data very specific. There are far reaching issues that arise from this. There is an clear expectation that when the public reports allegations, this is done so confidentially. So to release any data that could identify an individual may erode public trust which is likely to make individuals less likely to report allegations and offences to the MPS in the future. For an organisation that relies upon and requires public participation to help with law enforcement this would be detrimental. It is for this reason I have refused part of your request and will not disclose the date, time and method related to these CADs. Therefore Section 31(1)(a) has been applied to your request.

Section 40(2)(3) - Personal data - Section 40(3A)(a) states that public authorities will not disclose information which constitutes personal data and if the disclosure would contravene any of the Data Protection principles.

To disclose all the requested data could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals which would contravene Data Protection principles. The Data Protection Act 2018 defines personal data as any information relating to an identified or identifiable living individual.

There are six data protection principles set out in section 34 of the DPA 2018 and under Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The first principle requires personal data to be processed in a ‘lawful and fair’ manner. The basis for determining what constitutes lawful and fair is outlined under section 35 of the DPA.

Disclosure

I have attached an excel spreadsheet with the CAD numbers.

CAD stands for Computer Aided Dispatch. It is a system that is used to dispatch MPS units to calls received by the MPS. In supplying the attached data there are caveats that you will need to note. When the initial information is being inputted by an operator, there are a series of tags that can be used.

Please note that if incidents have not been tagged with the unlicensed music event (UME) tag then this may not show up in our results. To further investigate this would involve a manual search of UME on all CADs within that borough. If we take for example the 25 June 20, in the borough of Lambeth there were over 500 CADs created for that day alone. This type of search would therefore exceed cost limit set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and this request would need to be refused. You must also note that multiple locations may not been linked together, which may have also impacted the results that have been obtained.