Parties on crown property being investigated by MPS
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.024394
I note you seek access to the following information:
The Metropolitan Police decided initially to not investigate ‘parties’ in and around Downing Street. The police force’s lawyers pointed to guidelines saying it did not investigate Covid breaches retrospectively.
1. Who changed this decision and for what were the reasons / evidence to support this change ?
AND
2. Why are ‘parties’ on crown property being investigated by the Metropolitan Police, when these properties were exempt for covid restrictions ?
AND
3. Quite apart from No 10 Downing Street being crown property and therefore exempt from covid restrictions, why does a 9 minute gathering between meetings in an exempt building by a work bubble, qualify for a Fixed Penalty Notice for Boris Johnson?
Please note: your questions above have been numbered for clarity in our response.
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 21 – Information reasonably accessible by other means
Section 30(1)(a)(i)(ii) - Investigations and proceedings
Section 40(2)(3a)(a) - Personal Information
Reason for decision
Firstly, please be advised that Section 21 of the Act, which provides an exemption for information reasonably accessible by other means, has been applied to refuse disclosure of information relevant to your first question (question 1), where you ask:
“Who changed this decision and for what were the reasons / evidence to support this change?”
Information relevant to the above question is already in the public domain. To assist I have provided links to two published documents which provide a full explanation. The first takes you to a transcript of the Commissioner’s opening statement at the Police and Crime Committee - 25/01/2022.
Transcript of Commissioner’s opening statement at the Police and Crime Committee - 25/01/22
The information requested has been identified as being accessible via other means as it is already published. Where information is already in the public domain we are not required to re-publish the data; instead public authorities are required to direct you to the information, which we have done in this instance.
Section 30(1)(a)(i)(ii) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by the public authority - Release of the requested information would reinforce the MPS commitment as an open and transparent organisation. Disclosure would also reassure the general public that the MPS has appropriate methods and practices in place when dealing with such investigations.
By its very nature, any information held relating to investigations is sensitive in nature. The exemption under Section 30 is concerned with preserving the safe space that can be critical to the investigation and prosecution process. It is designed to protect the independence of the judicial and prosecution process by preserving the criminal court as the sole forum for the determination of guilt.
The MPS will never disclose information that could identify sensitive investigative activity and therefore undermine their investigations. To do so would hinder the prevention and detection of crime, as well as prejudice the MPS's ability to fairly conduct investigations.
To disclose such information would be harmful to any investigations, should they be unsolved at this time. To disclose information has the potential to cause any ongoing investigation to collapse, as well as undermine confidence in the police. Should the public be given such information, suspects or potential suspects could be alerted as to the extent of police activity, or giving them prior notice of police activity, thus helping them to evade justice.
Additionally, please be advised that any information held relevant to your third question (question 3), will be held for the purpose of investigation and is therefore exempt under Section 30(1)(a)(i)(ii) of the Act. Furthermore, disclosure of information relevant to this question would identify an individual, or individuals, and would release sensitive personal information in relation to that individual, or individuals into the public domain and the exemption afforded by Section 40(2)(3a)(a) of the act, which relates to personal information, has also been applied.
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 to disclose the information we hold would be grossly unfair to those captured within the data.
Disclosure
Q: Why are ‘parties’ on crown property being investigated by the Metropolitan Police, when these properties were exempt for covid restrictions?
The existence of a possible exemption did not preclude us from issuing FPNs or subsequently pursuing a prosecution.
It may be of interest to you that a similar question was raised at ‘UK Parliament – Written questions, answers and statements’ on 14/12/2021. The following answer was provided by Lord True:
Regulations under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 which relate to the activities of people, apply regardless of whether those activities took place on Crown property or not.
Please access the link below to the relevant page on the UK Parliament website: