Minutes and agendas for Operation Drayfurn related to Daniel Morgan
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.024404
I note you seek access to the following information:
According to a recently released report, the MPS has a group called the MPS Professional Group for the Daniel Morgan Report.
I would like to know the following information:
1. The dates this group has met in the year 2021 and 2022 (to date).
2. The regular membership of the group, if held.
3. For each of the meetings held in 1a) a copy of the meeting's agenda and minutes.
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 31(1)(a) – Law Enforcement
Section 40(2)&(3) - Personal Information
Reason for decision
When a request for information is made under the Act, a public authority must inform you, when permitted, whether the information requested is held. It must then communicate that information to you. If a public authority decides that it cannot comply with all or part of a request, it must cite the appropriate section or exemption of the Act and provide you with an explanation.
The information provided is in a redacted format, that is, I have removed information that I consider to be exempt under the Act. A black block black block denotes where exempt information has been removed.
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.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement - When information is released under FOIA it is also published on the MPS website and considered to be a release to the world and the MPS then has no control over what use is made of that information.
Whilst not questioning the motives of any applicant, providing information that we believe would prejudice law enforcement or any information that would reveal policing tactics or would compromise law enforcement tactics would not be released.
This would hinder the MPS’ ability to prevent and detect crimes and would allow criminals to gain knowledge about capabilities and investigative processes of police forces as a whole. Such criminals will be able to determine vulnerabilities and specifically target those force areas where they see a potential area to exploit. This would undermine the operational integrity of our activities, which would adversely affect law enforcement.
It is not in the public interest to disclose information that may compromise the MPS’ ability to accomplish its core functions of law enforcement.
The MPS is reliant upon the techniques used during investigations and the public release of some of the information requested would prejudice its ability to conduct policing of investigations.
When considering whether the release of information is in the public interest, I have to consider whether the public interest is in favour of releasing information into the public domain or whether there is sufficient reason to support withholding the requested information.
I have found that that the public release and publication of the information requested would provide persons intent on disrupting the work of MPS, with information that would assist them in this endeavour.
Given this and the fact that the removal of this information does not detract from the quality of the information being disclosed, I have found that the release of this information is not in the public interest.
Section 40(2)&(3) – Personal Information - Section 40(2)(a)(b) of the Act 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.
The requested records contain the name of the applicant in this FOIA request, members of staff that processed this request and other information of a personal nature. Having considered the legitimate interest test in respect of this personal data, I have found that:
Names of MPS employees - The MPS employees named in the requested records would not reasonably expect their names to be published in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. I have not identified a legitimate interest that would be satisfied in disclosing their personal data in response to this request for 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
Meeting dates were:
25.08.2021;
30.09.2021;
28.10.2021;
01.12.2021
The attached Minutes include membership names, redacted as necessary.
Please find attached redacted copies of meeting agendas and minutes.