Offences recorded with an Outcome of a Community Resolution from 2020 to 2021

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.024759

I note you seek access to the following information:

1. On 29/04/2019 the MPS published its Community Resolution policy/SOP (as a result of FOI request). Please provide a copy of any updates to this policy, if it has not been updated please say so.

2. MPS CR policy states that it should only be used to clear up/resolve low-level crime. However, unlike other forces, the MPS has not defined the types or categories of crimes it considers unsuitable for CR.
I would be if you would provide the following.
a) Types or categories of crimes that the MPS deem NOT suitable for Community Resolution.

3. I would be grateful if you would provide the following statistical information;
a) The number of CR administered in 2020, and 2021 (calendar years)
b) The number of CRs administered to clear up/resolve allegations involving the following category of offences, for 2020, 2021

1. Offences under section 76 Serious Crime Act 2015 controlling, coercive, conduct within domestic abuse cases.
2. Threats to kill - Section 16 OAPA 1861
3. Racially aggravated offences of malicious/nuisance communications or harassment S.29 Crime & Disorder Act 1998
4. Stalking or harassment offences Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
5. Intentionally encouraging an offence - Section 45/46/47 Serious Crime Act 2007.

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

At your question 3(b) you have asked us to disclose the number of Community Resolutions (CRs) administered to clear up/resolve a list of specified offence categories for 2020, 2021, broken down by year. Unfortunately however, low numbers have been identified in relation to some offence categories and disclosure of this data when broken down by year could identify individuals and release sensitive personal information in relation to individuals into the public domain. Section 40 of the Act, which provides an exemption to refuse disclosure of personal information, has therefore been applied to refuse disclosure and I have made the decision to provide a combined total for some of the offence categories you have listed.

Section 40(2)(3)&(4) – Personal Information - There are six data protection principles that are set out in Section 34 of the Data Protection Act 2018. The first principle requires that the disclosure of the requested personal data must be lawful and fair. Under the Act, 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 information contains personal data that I consider exempt under the Act, for example, were we to disclose the number of offences, and outcomes of investigations broken down by year and specific offence type, it is highly likely that individuals could be identified and disclosure would release sensitive information in relation to individuals into the public domain.

Having assessed the data, I have found, having considered the legitimate interest test, that disclosure of the additional requested information would not be in accordance with the first principle. Although I understand there is an interest in the information you are seeking, I believe this interest has been satisfied by the release of the disclosed information. I do not believe that providing any more details, when there is a reasonable risk that the additional information would identify individuals involved, would add to any wider public debate that may be ongoing.

Furthermore I do not think it would be fair to the individuals concerned if information was disclosed that identified them as being linked in any way to any offence. For example, a victim would not expect us to disclose the fact that they were such, and may not wish for family, or colleagues, to know they had reported a crime to police.

Under Section 40(2) and (3) of the Act, Public Authorities are able to withhold information where its release would identify any living individual and breach the principles of the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA). I have applied this exemption in that the identity of individuals that may be realised through providing the information broken down in the format you have requested would constitute personal data which, if released, would be in breach of the rights provided by the DPA.

The six principles of the DPA govern the way in which data controllers must manage personal data. Under principle one of the DPA, personal data must be processed fairly and lawfully. I consider that providing information that identifies individuals constitutes personal data. The release of this information would be unfair as the persons concerned would have no reasonable expectation that the MPS would make this information publicly available.

In reaching my decision, I have, in each case, given due regard to the condition at Article 6(1)(a) and 6(1)(e) of the GDPR. Condition one of the GDPR requires that consideration is given to whether consent for disclosure has been given whilst Condition six requires that consideration is given to performance of a public task in the public interest.

Having considered both conditions, I have established that no consent is present or would likely be received to release this information. 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.

Disclosure

Q1 - On 29/04/2019 the MPS published its Community Resolution policy/SOP (as a result of FOI request). Please provide a copy of any updates to this policy, if it has not been updated please say so.

The current Community Resolution policy remains as is from 2019, however, the policy is due to be reviewed following the introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the MPS CR policy will reflect this.

Q2 - MPS CR policy states that it should only be used to clear up/resolve low-level crime. However, unlike other forces, the MPS has not defined the types or categories of crimes it considers unsuitable for CR. I would be if you would provide the following.

(a) Types or categories of crimes that the MPS deem NOT suitable for Community Resolution.

Met policy current dictates that CR cannot be used for the following:
• DA and DV matters
• hate crimes
• sexual offences
• firearms offences
• offensive weapons and pointed and bladed articles

With regard to the above offences, exceptional circumstances may apply that make CR an appropriate outcome. Extreme care should be taken when using CR in these circumstances and made by the relevant investigation team having sought advice and authority from at least a substantive Inspector. The decision must be fully documented on the CRIS.

Police officers and staff must not be issued with a CR. Further secondary investigation is required. In cases where a CR is deemed appropriate, it must be referred to the DPS who will check, slow time, if a CR is suitable. This slow decision is necessary as this may constitute a breach of the code of ethics or police regulations.

Where the offender or victim is considered to have a mental health condition, the officer should consult with the appropriate mental health professional responsible. It must be evident that they have capacity to understand what is going on. Make sure an appropriate adult is present.

Community Resolution (CR) is about officers deciding “what is the right thing to do at the outcome of an investigation, whilst ensuring that a proportionate outcome is given”. The investigating officer has all the information they need having spoken to everyone involved to make correct decisions that provide fair and rapid justice in line with the victim’s wishes. It’s about ensuring the offender accepts responsibility for their actions and provides reparation for what they have done. CR is all about swift informal justice, and allows officers to do the best thing for all concerned in qualifying crimes by using our powers of discretion.

Q3 - I would be grateful if you would provide the following statistical information;
(a) The number of CR administered in 2020, and 2021 (calendar years)

Please see table 1 of the attached spreadsheet. Please ensure that the data is read in conjunction with the notes page of the attached spreadsheet to ensure correct interpretation of the data provided.

(b) The number of CRs administered to clear up/resolve allegations involving the following category of offences, for 2020, 2021

Please see table 2 of the attached spreadsheet.

You will see that I have provided a full disclosure in relation to offences classified as ‘Making Threats to Kill’, and ‘Offence of Harassment.’, however, as outlined in the reasons for decision section, a total combined figure by year is provided for the other offence categories you have listed, due to extremely low figures located for some offence categories.

Please ensure that the data is read in conjunction with the notes page of the attached spreadsheet to ensure correct interpretation of the data provided.