Custody suites assigned to cover Extinction Rebellion protests from August to September 2021

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.020933

I note you seek access to the following information:

Could you please share all minutes and documents linked to the decision making process and rational for which custody suites were assigned to cover the Extinction Rebellion protests of London, 22 August to 5 September 2021.

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 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information
Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement

Reason for decision

When a request for information is made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act), a public authority must inform you, when permitted, whether the information requested is held. It must then communicate that information to you. If a public authority decides that it cannot comply with all or part of a request, it must cite the appropriate section or exemption of the Act and provide you with an explanation.

Following receipt of your request, I have conducted searches to locate information relevant to your request. These searches located 5 emails chains and a spreadsheet that concerns staff deployments at custody suites in response to the Extinction Rebellion protests between the 22 August 2021 and 5 September 2021.

Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information - Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act provides that any information to which a request for information relates, is exempt information if the first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) is satisfied. The first condition of Section 40(3A)(a) states that personal information is exempt if its disclosure would contravene any of the data protection principles. If the disclosure of the requested personal data would not contravene the data protection principles, the disclosure must also not contravene Sections 3A(b) and 3B of the Act.

There are six principles that are set out in Article 5(1)(a) of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) that dictate when the processing of personal data is lawful. The first principle requires that any processing of personal data must be lawful, fair and transparent. Under Article 6(1)(f) of the GDPR, 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.

The requested records contain the names and contact details of members of MPS staff. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:

Names of Police Officers holding the rank of Superintendent and below -
a. The police officers and staff named in the requested records that hold the rank of Superintendent and below, do not hold the rank or role where they would reasonably expect their names to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. I have not therefore identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for information.

Email addresses, telephone numbers and locations of staff members -
b. The public release of the contact details of MPS employees that have corresponded in relation to which custody suites would be assigned to the Extinction Rebellion protests between the 22nd of August and the 5th of September, 2021, would not satisfy any identifiable legitimate interest.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3A)(a) of the Act is both absolute and class based. When this exemption is claimed, it is accepted that harm would result from disclosure. There is accordingly no requirement to demonstrate what that harm may be in refusing access to information.

Section 31(1)(a) - Law Enforcement - Section 31(1)(a) of the Act provides that any information is exempt if its disclosure under the Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime.

I have claimed this exemption in that the release and publication of the contact details of named MPS employees, would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of the MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour. Additionally, I have claimed this exemption as the requested email chains contain operational material, the release of which would adversely affect the Met’s ability to both prevent and detect crime.

The provision to refuse access to information under Section 31(1)(a) is both qualified and prejudice based. I am accordingly required to conduct a public interest test to determine whether the 'public interest' lies in disclosing or withholding the requested information. In addition to conducting a public interest test, I must also establish the nature of the prejudice/harm that would result from disclosure and where prejudice/harm is established but not certain, determine the likelihood of it occurring.

The release and publication of the telephone numbers, email addresses and other contact details of MPS members of staff, would provide persons intent on disrupting their work, with information that would assist them to do so. In this regard, a person with this intent would be likely to use this information to make inappropriate contact with members of staff and/or send them vast amounts of unsolicited correspondence. This would tie up the resources of these members of staff and cause disruption to the work of the MPS.

The MPS has a statutory role to both prevent and detect crime. The requested emails contain some operational material that would, if released, be likely to harm the Met’s ability to both prevent and detect crime. This includes information related to the planning for the protests which could be used by protest groups to frustrate operational policing.

Disclosure

I have disclosed the 5 located email chains to you in redacted format that is I have removed information that I consider to be exempt under the Act. Exempt information has either been highlighted in black or replaced with a series of asterisks. The spreadsheet that concerns staff deployments at custody suites in response to the Extinction Rebellion protests, has been withheld in its entirety.