Police misconduct and sexual exploitation

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.022929

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please can you answer the following questions for each of these time periods:
2018 (calendar year); 2019 (calendar year); 2020 (calendar year) and 2021 (calendar year):

1) How many disciplinary hearings relating to an officer being accused of abusing their power for purposes of sexual exploitation were held by your force over the requested period?

Please break down this information in terms of the rank of the officer accused of such an offence (for example, but not limited to: police constable, police sergeant, senior officer); a brief description of the offence (for example, but not limited to: attempting to form an inappropriate relationship with a vulnerable woman on the course of duty); if this was a complaint from a member of the public or an internal referral; the outcome in each case (for example, but not limited to: dismissal from force without notice) with rank included; the gender of the accused officer.

I understand if some details have to be withheld but others should be allowed under the act to be disclosed. Please would you be so kind as to act in a spirit of transparency.

2) For each of the time periods, please tell me how many of the accused officers were granted anonymity at the misconduct hearing (telling me- for each case they were granted anonymity- the details of the offence they were charged with; the outcome of the hearing; the gender of the officer; the reason the presiding panel chairperson gave for granting anonymity at the misconduct hearing (along with the name of the presiding officer).

3) Please could you also provide information on the misconduct panel chair (i.e. their name and gender) for all the misconduct hearings where anonymity was not granted to the accused officer(s).

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

Reason for decision

The information located in response to part 1 of your request has been provided within the enclosed spreadsheet titled ‘FOIA Part 1’. The information disclosed has in redacted format, that is, I have removed information from the ‘Allegation Summary’ field that would lead to the identification of each officer and/or the victims. I have also refused to provide the rank of each officer alongside the allegation recorded about each officer’s conduct and the outcome of each misconduct hearing. In this regard, the personal data exemption is claimed.

The information located in response to part 2 of your request has been provided in the section of the notice titled ‘Disclosure,’ below. The details of the allegation made against the officer and the presiding panel chair’s reasons for granting anonymity have been withheld, as it has been determined that this information may lead to their identification and/or is of a sensitive personal nature. In this regard, the personal data exemption is claimed.

Section 40(2)(a)(b) - Personal Information - 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.

Allegation Summaries -
a. The public release and publication of information that concerns the circumstances of each misconduct allegation would satisfy a legitimate interest, being to provide further details about the allegations recorded about each police officer’s conduct over the period specified by this request.

b. The disclosure of this information is necessary to meet the legitimate interest identified at point a above.

c. The release of the circumstances of each misconduct allegation would place into the public domain, specific details of each offence that would be likely to identify the victims and accused officers in each case. This would occur as some of the precise details of each case may be known, to varying degrees, by persons both internal and/or external of the MPS. For example, the victim’s family and friends may be aware of the allegation and/or the circumstances. This applies equally to the family and friends of the accused police officers but also their colleagues who may be aware, to varying degrees, of the allegations made. The provision of identifiable information, when coupled with the outcome of their misconduct hearing, would place information into the public domain, about the finding in each case in a manner that is identifiable to both the victim and accused police officer. The release of information that would enable information about the victim and/or an accused police officer in each case to be established, would be unexpected and potentially distressing to each party. In this regard, I believe that the disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects of this request.

Ranks of Accused Police Officers -
a. The public release and publication of the rank of each police officer alongside their misconduct allegation and the outcome of their misconduct hearing would satisfy a legitimate interest, being to provide further detail about the allegations recorded about each police officer’s conduct over the period specified by this request.

b. The disclosure of this information is necessary to meet the legitimate interest identified at point ‘a’ above.

c. The release of the rank of each police officer alongside their misconduct allegation and the outcome of their misconduct hearing, would be likely to identify a number of the accused officers. This would occur as misconduct hearings for any form of sexual misconduct/exploitation are relatively rare. In this regard, 17 misconduct hearings were identified as relevant to your request from the 1st of January 2018 to the 31st of December 2021. It is likely that the officers’ subject of the misconduct hearings will be known, to varying degrees, by third parties, this being particularly the case amongst MPS employees. Given that 3 officers held a rank other than constable, it is likely that the provision of the rank of these officers alongside their misconduct allegation and misconduct hearing outcome, would increase the likelihood of their identification in two ways. Firstly those that may be aware of the officer’s identity and/or the officer’s rank, will be informed of the nature of the allegation made and/or details of the allegation that the officer was the subject of. Secondly where the officer has been identified through their rank and/or the nature of the allegation recorded, provision of the misconduct hearing’s outcome would provide new information about the officer. The release of information that would either identify each police officer or provide new information about them would be unexpected and potentially distressing to each party. In this regard, I believe that the disclosure of this personal data would be likely to cause unwarranted harm to the data subjects of this request.

The information located in response to part 3 of your request has been provided in full within the enclosed spreadsheet titled ‘FOIA Part 3’

Disclosure

Q2 - For each of the time periods, please tell me how many of the accused officers were granted anonymity at the misconduct hearing (telling me- for each case they were granted anonymity- the details of the offence they were charged with; the outcome of the hearing; the gender of the officer; the reason the presiding panel chairperson gave for granting anonymity at the misconduct hearing (along with the name of the presiding officer).

Answer: In 2018, a male police officer was the subject of a misconduct hearing for gross misconduct. The officer was dismissed without notice. The legally qualified chairperson for this case was Mr Akbar Khan.

CONTEXT
The column titled ‘Allegation Summary’ as provided in the spreadsheet titled FOIA Part 1, may not reflect the findings of the misconduct hearing panel.

The column titled ‘Year’ relates to the date that each allegation was recorded by the MPS. The data collated in response to this request is based on the year of the misconduct hearing.

Maintaining Public Trust in the MPS - Securing and maintaining the trust of the community is integral to the principle of policing by consent and to continue to do so, the MPS recognises that its staff must act with professionalism and integrity at all times. The MPS treats each occasion that an allegation is made about the conduct of its staff extremely seriously and will fully investigate each incident to determine whether the conduct of that member of staff has breached the standards of professional behaviour. Where the conduct of staff is proven to have fallen below the standards of behaviour expected, the MPS will take robust action to ensure that its staff are appropriately disciplined and that lessons are learnt from each case. Any instance where the conduct of our staff is alleged to have fallen below the standards of behaviour expected is treated extremely seriously by the MPS.