MPS use of drones

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.21.022267

I note you seek access to the following information:

I am writing to make an open government request for all the information to which I am entitled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relating to unmanned aerial vehicle (or drone) operations conducted by your Force.
Please send me details about:

• The number of qualified drone operators (both full and part time) you currently have working for the Force in any capacity.
• The number of drones currently used by the Force.
• The type (by manufacturer and model) of drones currently used by the Force.
• The cumulative number of our hours flown by each drone type in the last 12 months[1].
• The number of drone crashes, losses or failures experienced in the last 12 months by the Force by drone type.

[1] If the drone in question is not 12 months old please provide the total number of flying hours and accrual period.

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 23(5) Information relating to the Security bodies;
- Section 24(2) National Security;
- Section 31(3) Law enforcement.

Reason for decision

Questions 2 and 3

Section 23(5) - Information relating to the Security bodies
Section 24(2) – National Security
Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement -

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 the Act, any information disclosed is released into the wider public domain, effectively to the world, not just to an individual.

The use of drones is a rapidly developing technique, which can be used by the police service as a whole in a variety of ways to combat crime. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, providing the number and specific type of drones used by the Met would enable those with criminal intent to establish how likely it would be that a drone would be deployed, and how many were at our disposal. This would assist criminals in conducting their criminal and possibly terrorist related activities and be used to counteract the measures used against them. This would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and, subsequently, future prosecutions.

Any information which could identify the capability available to the MPS could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement. Public safety would also likely be put at risk if criminals and terrorists were able to ascertain how many and what type of drones were available to us, as they could put measures in place to counteract them.

Disclosing the types of drones we have would mean work could be undertaken, using detailed information readily available on the internet, to ascertain their strengths and weaknesses. Such a disclosure could allow criminals to target the drones to counter their effectiveness, thus allowing their operations to continue. Revealing the capabilities of these resources would therefore prove to be valuable information to criminals. This would both directly and indirectly impact on the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals and increase the fear of crime in the community the police service seeks to serve.

Disclosure of the information requested would compromise law enforcement tactics, which could lead to more crime being committed and individuals being placed at risk. It may also be used by criminals/terrorists who are intent on pursuing their criminal activity, to identify and exploit any limitations of these resources, thus hindering the prevention and detection of crime and increasing the risk to public safety.
Criminals, including terrorists, could use this information in order to ascertain if their activities are less likely to be detected. Disclosure of the make and model of these drones would also identify the type of UAV, which would mean that individuals could research details about them and their capabilities. To disclose the strengths and any possible weaknesses of the equipment would compromise law enforcement tactics, which could lead to more crime being committed and individuals being placed at risk.
It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing this information, since they may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.

Law enforcement is of paramount importance and the Police service will not disclose information if to do so would undermine its purpose and place the safety of an individual(s) at risk. Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of using public money in policing operations appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by criminal or terrorists, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding both the security of the country and the integrity of police investigations and operations in this area.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced in matters of security and law enforcement, this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The use of drones is a police tactic that is open to police forces for the purpose of law enforcement and can assist in the prevention and detection of crime. Any disclosure which hinders our capability and assists criminals cannot be in the public interest.

It is for these reasons that I believe the balance test favours non-disclosure of the information requested at points 2 and 3.

In considering whether or not the MPS can confirm or deny whether any additional information is held, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by any potential disclosure.

As you will be aware from the above, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the use of drones for covert purposes would show criminals what the capacity, tactical abilities and capabilities of the force are, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities.

Confirming or denying the specific circumstances in which the police service may or may not deploy drones, would lead to an increase of harm to covert investigations and compromise law enforcement. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.

The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored, and it is well established that police forces use covert tactics and surveillance to gain intelligence in order to counteract criminal behaviour. As such, it has been previously documented in the media that many terrorist incidents have been thwarted due to intelligence gained by these means.

Confirming or denying that the Metropolitan Police hold any other information in relation to covert use of drones, or unmanned aerial devices, would limit operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police forces’ methods and techniques, enabling them to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in this area, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities.

This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies. In addition to the local criminal fraternity now being better informed, those intent on organised crime throughout the UK will be able to ‘map’ where the use of certain tactics are or are not deployed. This can be useful information to those committing crimes. It would have the likelihood of identifying location-specific operations which would ultimately compromise police tactics, operations and future prosecutions, as criminals could counteract the measures used against them.

Any information identifying the focus of policing activity could be used to the advantage of terrorists or criminal organisations. Information that undermines the operational integrity of these activities will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.

Confirming or denying that any other information is held regarding the covert use of drones for maritime/border surveillance would have the effect of compromising law enforcement tactics and would also hinder any future investigations. In addition, confirming or denying methods used to gather intelligence for an investigation would prejudice that investigation and any possible future proceedings.

It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so to confirm or deny any other information is held concerning specialist covert tactics would lead to law enforcement being undermined. The Police Service is reliant upon all manner of techniques during operations and the public release of any modus operandi employed, if held, would prejudice the ability of the Police Service to conduct similar investigations.

Confirming or denying whether any other information is held in relation to the use of drones would hinder the prevention or detection of crime. The Metropolitan Police would not wish to reveal what tactics may or may not have been used to gain intelligence as this would clearly undermine the law enforcement and investigative process. This would consequently impact on police resources and more crime and terrorist incidents would be committed, placing individuals at risk.

It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information, if held, in relation to any aspect of investigations or of any nation's security arrangements so confirming or denying that any information is held, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.

Confirming or denying whether any other information is held regarding the covert use of drones would provide an insight into the Metropolitan Police and how we operate. This would enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police and about how the police gather intelligence. It would also greatly assist in the quality and accuracy of public debate, which could otherwise be steeped in rumour and speculation. Where public funds are being spent, there is a public interest in accountability and justifying the use of public money.

Some information is already in the public domain regarding the police use of this type of specialist equipment and confirming or denying whether any other information is held would ensure transparency and accountability and enable the public to see what tactics are deployed by the Police Service to detect crime.

The security of the country is of paramount importance and the Metropolitan Police will not divulge whether any information is or is not held regarding the use of drones if to do so would place the safety of an individual at risk, undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.

Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing operations and providing assurance that the Met is appropriately and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police investigations and all areas of operations carried out by police forces throughout the UK.

As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. The use of drones in any covert capacity is a sensitive issue that would reveal police tactics and therefore it is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for confirming or denying whether any information is held regarding the use of drones is not made out.

However, this should not be taken as necessarily indicating that any information that would meet any future request exists or does not exist.

Please note this should not be taken to as an indication of whether or not any additional information is held.

Disclosure

- The number of qualified drone operators (both full and part time) you currently have working for the Force in any capacity.

The MPS currently employs 37 qualified pilots.

- The cumulative number of our hours flown by each drone type in the last 12 months

The hours flown by our drones are not recorded by specific drone and the number of hours flown that is recorded does not specify whether this it has been flown for operational/training/testing reasons. Therefore, this information is not held.

- The number of drone crashes, losses or failures experienced in the last 12 months by the Force by drone type

There have been zero crashes, losses or failures experienced in the last 12 months.