Crimes/offences involving e-scooters recorded in 2019, 2020 & 2021
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.023323
I note you seek access to the following information:
Could you provide the following information on crimes involving e-scooters.
The number of offences recorded by your force involving e-scooters or electric scooters in each of the past three calendar years: 2019, 2020 and 2021. If this information is not recorded, please provide figures on the number of crimes in which the initial incident detail mentions the word ‘e-scooter’ or the words ‘electric scooter’.
Please provide a breakdown for each of these offences of:
The offence description
The ONS offence subgroup
The outcome recorded (if any)
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
Data disclosed in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act is disclosed to the world, and not just to the individual requesting the information. This is best demonstrated by the FOI disclosures on the Disclosure Log section of the MPS website:
You have requested specific record level data. This level of information is not suitable for public consumption. Should the MPS publish crime data at the level requested (linking specific crime types with outcome data and other identifying information, such as the use of an e-scooter) it would be at such a level that would make the identification of individuals extremely possible. To produce and publish crime related information at a level that would identify the involved parties would not be lawful, fair or in line with our processing commitments. Thus, disclosure of the information at record level in the format requested is exempt in accordance with section 40(2)(3A)(a) of the Act.
However, in order to mitigate the risk of identification of both perpetrators and victims, we can provide the information in separate tables, and also aggregate rape and sexual offences.
Section 40(2)(3A)(a) – Personal Information - The information sought under your Freedom of Information request is at such a level that, if disclosed, would provide enough detail (offence type, year, e-scooter use, outcome) to identify the individuals involved – particularly victims.
When looking at disclosing the requested information, I have considered various pieces of guidance, including the ICO’s guidance titled ‘Crime mapping and geo-spatial crime data: privacy and transparency’, which examines a number of issues relating to the disclosure of crime data.
This guidance suggests that the following factors are relevant in relation to ensuring that the publication of crime maps (and essentially therefore low level, potentially identifying personal crime data – like in your request) comply with the Data Protection Act 2018:
• The granularity of the crime-map or data,
• The regularity of data uploads,
• The sensitivity of the crime,
• The information recorded on the map,
• The availability of other sources of information and,
• The effect on victims and others.
As the information you have requested is not directly relating to the publication of crime maps, I have, when looking at the data, considered the following, broadly equivalent factors when making my decision:
• The time period
• Sensitivity of the crimes
• Additional information
• The availability of other sources of information
• The effect on victims.
You are requesting crime data broken down by e-scooter use, outcome and specific crime type.
It is often believed that such information, even though detailed, is unlikely to allow anyone to actually identify those involved as the data is ‘too abstract’ and ‘there would be no way of knowing who these people were unless you were a witness to the crime’ for example. However, when considering identifiability, we have to assume that we are not looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary man in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a determined person (or a ‘motivated intruder’) with a particular reason to want to identify individuals. Examples would include investigative journalists, estranged partners, stalkers, to name but a few.
If this level of data was to be disclosed, it could be pieced together with information already known by individuals or already in the public domain in order to identify the individuals involved. For example, individuals may be partially aware of certain details of an alleged crime through word of mouth, witnessing an incident or police presence. To disclose certain details in relation to the nature of an incident may allow such individuals to ascertain or infer that a specific allegation or incident relates to a particular individual, and what the outcome of that offence was. This would be unfair to persons that were victims of a crime and/or to those suspected of an offence.
Therefore, where the request is seeking information that would essentially allow access to third party personal data (such as in this case) 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.
Disclosure
Please find the requested information attached.