Domestic violence alleged against the police from 2010 to 2016

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.021482

I note you seek access to the following information:

Current open Request (FOIA case number 21/21482);

In the cases marked 'would have been dismissed' please can you:

1. Give a brief description of what the allegation was
2. What happened to the officers-eg retired/resigned
3. I also require the same data from 2010-2017

On 14/10/21 you kindly confirmed that Questions One(1) and Two(2) relate to a disclosed dataset (provided under closed FOIA case 21/19847) for the following information;

a. How many Met police officers had domestic violence allegations made against them in: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
b. How many of these officers faced disciplinary proceedings;
c. How many had formal action taken against them;
d. How many had informal action taken against them;
e. How many retired or resigned;
f. How many cases are still being considered
g. What percentage of the accused officers in each year were men vs. women

On 14/10/21 you confirmed your current Question Three(3) is for the same data previously disclosed (under closed case 21/19847) but for the earlier years of 2010-2017.

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) (Personal Information)
- Section 31(1)(a) (Law Enforcement)

Reason for decision

The MPS is today able to disclose some of the requested information for Question One (1).

The MPS is today able to disclose the answers for Questions Two (2) and Three (3).

The MPS is committed to and appreciates the desire for transparency concerning allegations against police officers but it is vital we protect the integrity of all investigations and the trust of victims and witnesses, including potential victims and witnesses of unrelated allegations on future allegations of crime. Disclosures under the Freedom of Information Act can have unintended consequences especially when the subject matter relates to current and recent investigations.

A Freedom of Information Act request is not a private transaction. Both the request itself, and any information disclosed, are considered suitable for open publication. This is because, under Freedom of Information, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world and not just to one individual. Recently the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was been introduced across the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA).

In respect of the United Kingdom, GDPR was enshrined in UK law through the Data Protection Act 2018. The MPS, like all UK public authorities are obliged to comply with the Data Protection Act 2018 and this includes the protection of personal data. Information captured by your request, can fairly be considered "personal data" and sensitive, with a clear identifiable link.

In most cases, personal data is exempt from disclosure under the remit of the Freedom of Information Act. Where an individual is requesting third party personal data the MPS must ensure that any action taken adheres to the principles of GDPR/ the Data Protection Act 2018.

To clarify, the Freedom of Information Act only allows disclosure of personal data if that disclosure would be compliant with that law. The disclosure of the information you have requested must be carefully managed in order to ensure that there is no prejudice to any person in any possible way, however remote.

Section 40(2)(3A)(a) (Personal Information) - The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption. The information sought under your Freedom of Information request includes the following, which we consider the Personal Data of the individuals that could be identified through the release of this information/ Personal information requested within this FOIA request includes:

• Disclosure of identifiable personal data of a living individual.

Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data 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, we 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 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 involved with any legitimate public interest in disclosure. Having considered the release of the identified personal data, the MPS has found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that, whilst there is an element of public interest in some of the recorded information, the information requested is uniquely personal to a number of individuals (victims as well as a very small number of suspects).

Disclosure of the requested information under FOIA legislation is not necessary to meet a legitimate interest, particularly when considering the deep distress that is likely to be caused to victims/ victims’ families with the disclosure of wholly personal information via an FOIA request which may be used with other data in the public domain to identify individuals.

With this in mind, the data subjects in the circumstances of your request would have a legitimate expectation that this type of personal data would not be used for non-policing purposes (i.e. FOIA requests – disclosures for which are put up publicly on the MPS website Publication Scheme).

Disclosure in the circumstances of your request would be unlawful and would therefore contravene the first data protection principle. I have therefore applied the exemption provided under Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act to this information as the first condition, defined in subsection 3(A)(a) of Section 40 has been satisfied.

Section 31(1)(a) Law Enforcement - Any disclosure under FOI is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives behind this specific request, the MPS is required to take into account for an FOIA disclosure that the response is effectively a disclosure to the entire world. This fact is particularly relevant as disclosures under FOIA are published on the MPS website under the Publication Scheme.

Disclosure of personal allegations and details (especially if undertaken routinely under FOIA) would decrease trust in the police and so be likely to lead to an increase of risk and harm to investigations and compromise law enforcement. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service, especially if concerns about information leads to a lack of reporting to the MPS by vulnerable individuals.

An increase of crime due to adverse FOIA disclosures which may be used to try and undermine public confidence in the police or their processes would impact on police resources and ability to build strong relations with the community. It would do so if adverse FOIA disclosures that allow for personal identification (or even misidentified) are used to undermine the confidence and therefore safety of vulnerable individuals.

It is not in the public interest to disclose any information that could be used by those with the necessary intent to hinder the trust the public have in the police which in effect would damage the prevention or detection of crime, which is to the detriment of the community and public at large.

Individuals may be less inclined to call/make contact with the police for assistance regarding their own personal safety concerns if they believe the MPS also routinely disclose their allegation information regarding staff. Public confidence in the ability of the MPS to handle information relating to public safety and security is paramount.

Disclosure

Question One -

In regards to a previous dataset disclosed to you (under FOIA case number 21/19847) where in 2017 there were two allegations with Formal Action by sanction’ marked as ‘would have been dismissed’, the MPS can confirm that in respect of those two allegations you refer to;

- One related to an allegation of stalking/ harassment investigated by another police force.
- One allegation of assault.

Section 40(2) and Section 31(1)(a) applies to any further information the MPS hold.

Question Two

In regards to your question on what happened to the officers (eg retired/resigned) regarding the above two officer allegations, the MPS can confirm;

- One officer retired
- One officer resigned

Additional Context to Advise and Assist

The MPS takes any police-perpetrated abuse incidents extremely seriously and they are regularly scrutinised at a senior level.

Any allegation, disclosure or conviction of domestic abuse perpetrated by an officer or member of staff is robustly investigated. Tackling domestic abuse is a priority for the Met, and that includes when our own officers or staff are accused of offences.

The Met will not hesitate to bring forward prosecutions and disciplinary procedures where there is evidence to do so.