Closing Report - Operation Redrail 2 presented to IICSA IPC000859

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.022680

I note you seek access to the following information:

Freedom of Information request for documentation related to Closing Report - Operation Redrail 2 (15.2.2019) presented to IICSA IPC000859

1. I request all documentation concerning the Gisburne House inquiry 1999 referenced in para 98 of Closing Report- Operation Redrail 2 (Operation Winter Key Professional Standards Team 15.2.2019) where 'methods were deemed an abuse of process''.
I wish to increase my understanding of exactly why allegations did not progress further at this stage and why a court hearing at Snaresbrook Court was closed down suddenly in 1999.

Gisburne House abuse networks and the statutory responses to allegations made over the years covered by the Closing Report -Op Redrail2 are, in my view, of public interest as well as of interest to myself and in particular to the 64 Islington survivors of Gisburne House institutional sexual and physical abuse who have come forward to Islington Survivors network so far.

2. I am also interested to know which statutory child protection protocols regarding institutional abuse of children were implemented by the police during all the stated 4 times when investigations were requested and refused.

The many allegations of child abuse related to Gisburne House and lack of investigation are of great concern to me as the abusers are not all deceased by any means and most probably continue to pose a risk to children as I have been stating to police since 1992.

I make further reference to one of the recently disclosed documents as attached which cites:
'It is now known that in the early 1970s at least 6 staff suspected of abusing children were in fact employed together at Gisburne House'

3. And request all other documentation relating to this statement in order to understand the basis on which it was made as well as any documentation regarding referral to child protection agencies at the time made in order to protect children from those alleged abusers.

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)(3A)(a) - Personal Information

Reason for decision
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information - Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data.

The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.

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 I have decided that the disclosure of the information 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.

The MPS accept that there is a legitimate interest in the disclosure of the requested information, however the processing of personal data is governed by legislation and as such, the MPS has a legal obligation to take appropriate steps to protect personal data.

Publishing more personal information than is necessary to satisfy the public interest would impair the ability of the MPS to fulfil its legal obligations.

Please also note that the public interest has been substantially served by IICSA and some information is already in the public domain.

This exemption applies to Q.1 & 3. This is because, to disclose personal information in relation to your request could publicly reveal information about an individual or individuals, thereby breaching the right to privacy afforded to persons under the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

In the event that individuals are deceased, related information may relate to living individuals and there is also a duty of confidence owed to those who have provided statements. Although some information may already be in the public domain via IICSA, Inquiries and courts have additional legal gateways that justify their processing of personal data, e.g., disclosure.

It is important to note that 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, that is, once access to information is granted to one person under the Act, it is then considered public information and must be communicated to any individual should a request be received. Any information released under the Act is also published on the MPS website.

Disclosure

With reference to Q.2, please find attached document which catalogues the list of relevant policies and protocols.